UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

SCHEDULE 14A

(Rule 14a-101)

Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the

Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (Amendment

(Amendment No.             )

Filed by the Registrant  ☒                             Filed by a Party other than the Registrant  ☐

Check the appropriate box:

Filed by the Registrant [X]
Filed by a Party other than the Registrant [   ]
Check the appropriate box:
[  ]Preliminary Proxy Statement
[  ]
Confidential, for Use of the Commission Only (as permitted by Rule 14a-6(e)(2))
[X]
Definitive Proxy Statement
[  ]
Definitive Additional Materials
[  ]
Soliciting Material Pursuant to §240.14a-12

Honeywell International Inc.
(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)
(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if other than the Registrant)

Honeywell International Inc.

(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)

(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if other than the Registrant)

Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):

[X]
No fee required.
[  ]Fee computed on table below per Exchange Act Rules 14a-6(i)(1) and 0-11.
 1)
 1)

Title of each class of securities to which transaction applies:

     

 2)

Aggregate number of securities to which transaction applies:

     

 3)

Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 0-11 (set forth the amount on which the filing fee is calculated and state how it was determined):

     

 4)

Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction:

     

 5)

Total fee paid:

 
[  ]Fee previously paid with preliminary materials.
[  ]Check box if any part of the fee is offset as provided by Exchange Act Rule 0-11(a)(2) and identify the filing for which the offsetting fee was paid previously. Identify the previous filing by registration statement number, or the Form or Schedule and the date of its filing.
 1)

Amount Previously Paid:

     

 2)

Form, Schedule or Registration Statement No.

 3)

Filing Party:

     

 4)

Date Filed:

2018PROXY STATEMENT

AND NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING OF SHAREOWNERS


At Honeywell, we are bringing together the physical and digital worlds to tackle some of the toughest business and societal challenges. We specialize in the things that are critically connected. Beyond smart phones and laptops, we make the kind of connections that keep cities working, planes flying, factories running, and workers safe.

 

 

 

THIS IS THE POWER OFCONNECTED


LOGO

THIS IS THE POWER OFHONEYWELL2019 PROXY STATEMENT And Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners honeywell


LOGO


Connected Aircraft • Connected Vehicle

Connected Buildings • Connected Homes

Connected Plant • Connected Utilities

Connected Supply Chain • Connected Worker

LOGO

March 8, 201814, 2019

To OurDear Shareowners:

You are cordially invited to attend the Annual Meeting of Shareowners of Honeywell International Inc., which will be held at 10:30 a.m. on Monday, April 23, 201829, 2019, at our headquarters located at 115 Tabor Road, Morris Plains, New Jersey 07950.

The accompanying noticeNotice of meetingMeeting and proxy statementProxy Statement describe the matters to be voted on at the meeting. At this year’s meeting, you will be asked to elect directors, cast an advisory vote on executive compensation, approve the appointment of the independent accountants, approve an amendment to Honeywell’s Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation to reduce the ownership threshold required for shareowners to call a special meeting of shareowners, and consider two shareowner proposals.

The Board of Directors recommends that you voteFOR Proposals 1 through 4:3:

 

Proposal 1: Election of Directors

 

Proposal 2: Advisory Vote Toto Approve Executive Compensation

 

Proposal 3: Approval of Independent Accountants

Proposal 4: Reduce Ownership Threshold Required To Call A Special Meeting Of Shareowners

The Board of Directors recommends that you voteAGAINST each of the following shareowner proposals: Proposals 4 and 5:

 

Proposal 4: Right to Act by Written Consent

Proposal 5: Independent Board Chairman

Proposal 6: Report on Lobbying Payments and Policy

 

YOUR VOTE IS IMPORTANT. We encourage you to read the proxy statement and vote your shares as soon as possible. Shareowners may vote via the Internet, by telephone, by completing and returning a proxy card or by scanning the QR code provided on the next page in the Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners or on the proxy card. Specific voting instructions are set forth in the proxy statement
LOGO

YOUR VOTE IS IMPORTANT.I encourage you to read the Proxy Statement and vote your shares as soon as possible. Shareowners may vote via the Internet, by telephone, by completing and returning a proxy card, or by scanning the QR code provided on the next page in the Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners or on the proxy card. Specific voting instructions are set forth in the Proxy Statement and on both the Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials and proxy card.

On behalf of the Board of Directors, weI want to thank you for your continued support of Honeywell.

Sincerely,

 

David M. Cote

ChairmanLOGO

 

Darius Adamczyk

PresidentChairman and Chief Executive Officer

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019



LOGO

NOTICE OF ANNUAL

MEETING OF SHAREOWNERS

DATEMonday, April 23, 2018

TIME10:30 a.m. EDT

LOCATIONHoneywell’s Headquarters, 115 Tabor Road, Morris Plains, New Jersey

RECORD DATEClose of business on February 23, 2018

March 8, 2018

Meeting Agenda:

 

Election of the 12 nominees listed in the accompanying proxy statement to the Board of Directors.
DATE  
An advisory vote to approve executive compensation.

April 29, 2019

TIME  
Approval of the appointment of Deloitte & Touche LLP as independent accountants for 2018.

10:30 a.m. EDT

PLACE  
A management proposal to amend

Honeywell’s Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation to reduce the ownership threshold required for shareowners to call special meetings of shareowners.Headquarters

115 Tabor Road, Morris Plains, NJ 07950

RECORD DATE  
If properly raised, two shareowner proposals described onpages 84-88

Close of the proxy statement.business on March 1, 2019

MEETING AGENDA  
Transact any other business that may properly come before the meeting.

 

Election to the Board of Directors of the 12 nominees listed in the Proxy Statement

An advisory vote to approve executive compensation

Approval of the appointment of Deloitte & Touche LLP as independent accountants for 2019

If properly raised, two shareowner proposals described on pages 86-91 of the Proxy Statement

Transact any other business that may properly come before the meeting

Important Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s “Notice and Access” rule enables Honeywell to deliver a Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials to shareowners in lieu of a paper copy of the proxy statement,Proxy Statement, related materials, and the Company’sour Annual Report to Shareowners. It contains instructions on how to access our proxy statementProxy Statement and 2017 annual report2018 Annual Report and how to vote online.

Shares cannot be voted by marking, writing on, and/or returning the Notice of Internet Availability. Any Notices of Internet Availability that are returned will not be counted as votes.

We encourage shareowners to vote promptly as this will save the expense of additional proxy solicitation. Shareowners of record on the Record Date are entitled to vote at the meeting by telephone, by mail, online, or inby scanning the following ways:

By TelephoneBy InternetBy MailBy Scanning

In the U.S. or Canada, you can voteQR code on your shares by calling

+1 (800) 690-6903.

You can vote your shares online atwww.proxyvote.com. You will need the 16-digit control number on the Notice of Internet Availability or proxy card.

You can vote by mail by marking, dating and signing your proxy card or voting instruction form and returning it in the postage-paid envelope.

You can vote your shares online by scanning the QR code above. You will need the 16-digit control number on the Notice of Internet Availability or proxy card. Additional software may need to be downloaded.

This Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners and related Proxy Materials are being distributed or made available to shareowners beginning on or about March 8, 2018.

14, 2019.

By Order of the Board of Directors,

 

LOGO

 

Anne T. Madden

Senior Vice President, General Counsel
and Corporate Secretary

LOGO

By Telephone

In the U.S. or Canada, you can

vote your shares by calling

+1 (800) 690-6903.

LOGO

By Internet

You can vote your shares online at www.proxyvote.com. You will need the16-digit control number on the Notice of Internet Availability or proxy card.

LOGO

By Mail

You can vote by mail by marking, dating, and signing your proxy card or voting instruction form, and returning it in the postage-paid envelope.

LOGO

By Scanning

You can vote your shares online by scanning the QR code on your proxy card. You will need the 16-digit control number on the Notice of Internet Availability or proxy card. Additional software may need to be downloaded.

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019



TABLE OF

CONTENTS

 i  | Proxy Summary Pg 1
  01  | 

 

Proposal 1: Election of Directors

 Pg 7
   Director Skills and Qualifications  7
   Board Skillset Matrix  8
   Commitment to Board Integrity, Diversity, and Independence  9
   Nomination and Election Process  9
   Nominees for Election  10
  02  | Corporate Governance Pg 16
   Shareowner Outreach and Engagement  17
   Board Leadership Structure  19
   Director Independence  20
   Board’s Role in Risk Oversight  22
   Board Practices and Procedures  23
   Board Committees  25
  03  | Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability Pg 29
   Performance Culture  29
   Sustainability  31
   Honeywell Hometown Solutions  32
   Political Engagement and Contributions  33
  04  | Director Compensation Pg 34
   Elements of Compensation  34
   2018 Director Compensation Table  35
   Stock Ownership Guidelines  36
  05  | Proposal 2: Advisory Vote to Approve Executive Compensation Pg 37
  06  | Compensation Discussion and Analysis Pg 38
   Our Named Executive Officers  39
   Performance Summary  39
   Our Compensation Program  41
   2018 Compensation Decisions  47
   2018 Annual Incentive Compensation Plan Decisions  50
   2018 Long-Term Incentive Compensation Decisions  56
   Other Compensation and Benefit Programs  59
   Compensation Practices and Policies  60
   Risk Oversight Considerations  61
   Management Development and Compensation Committee Report  63
  07  | Executive Compensation Tables Pg 64
   Summary Compensation Table  64
   Other Compensation Tables  66
   CEO Pay Ratio  83
  08  | Proposal 3: Approval of Independent Accountants Pg 84
   Independent Accounting Firm Fees  84
   Non-Audit Services  84
   Audit Committee Report  85
  09  | Proposal 4: Shareowner Proposal—Right to Act by Written Consent Pg 86
   Board Recommendation  87
  10  | Proposal 5: Shareowner Proposal—Report on Lobbying Payments and Policy Pg 89
   Board Recommendation  90
  11  | Additional Information Pg 92
Reconciliation, notes, and definitions
ofnon-GAAP financial measures used
in the Compensation Discussion and
Analysis section and elsewhere in this
proxy statement, other than as part of
disclosure of target levels, can be found
on page 38 or in Appendix A.
   Other Business  92
   Certain Relationships and Related Transactions  92
   Stock Ownership Information  93
   Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance  94
   Notice and Access  94
   Voting Procedures  94
   Attendance at the Annual Meeting  96
   Shareowner Proposals and Board Nominees  96
   Where Shareowners Can Find More Information  97
  A-1  | 

 

Appendix A: Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Financial Measures

 Pg A-1

(i)

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019



TABLE OF CONTENTS
Proxy Summaryi  |i
Sustainability And Corporate Responsibility

1PROXY

Political Contributions And ActivitiesSUMMARY

3
Shareowner Outreach And Engagement4
Proposal No. 1: Election of Directors6
Corporate Governance12
Summary of Improvements To Our Governance Guidelines In 201712
Board Leadership Structure13
Governance Best Practices14
Where Shareowners Can Find More Information16
Board Meetings16
Board Committees16
Board’s Role In Risk Oversight20
Director Independence21
Identification And Evaluation Of Director Candidates22
Director Orientation And Continuing Education23
Director Attendance At Annual Meetings23
Director Compensation24
Certain Relationships And Related Transactions26
Stock Ownership Information27
Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance28
SEC Filings And Reports28
Executive Compensation29
Proposal No. 2: Advisory Vote To Approve Executive Compensation30
Notes And Definitions To Compensation Discussion And Analysis30
Compensation Discussion And Analysis31
Management Development And Compensation Committee Report60
Summary Compensation Table61
Grants Of Plan-Based Awards-Fiscal Year 201763
Outstanding Equity Awards At 2017 Fiscal Year-End64
Option Exercises And Stock Vested-Fiscal Year 201766
Pension Benefits67
Nonqualified Deferred Compensation-Fiscal Year 201770
Potential Payments Upon Termination Or Change In Control73
CEO Pay Ratio78
Audit Committee Report81
Proposal No. 3: Approval Of Independent Accountants82
Management Proposal83
Proposal No. 4: Reduce Ownership Threshold Required To Call A Special Meeting Of Shareowners83
Shareowner Proposals84
Proposal No. 5: Independent Board Chairman84
Proposal No. 6: Report on Lobbying Payments and Policy86
Voting Procedures89
Attendance at the Annual Meeting91
Other Information92
Appendix A: Proposed Amendment To Honeywell’s Amended and Restated Certificate of IncorporationA-1
Appendix B: Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Financial MeasuresB-1
Recent AwardsInside Back Cover

Reconciliation, notes and definitions of non-GAAP financial measures used in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis section and elsewhere in this proxy statement, other than as part of disclosure of target levels, can be found onpage 30 or in Appendix B.

 

Table of Contents

PROXY SUMMARY

This proxy summary is intended to provide a broad overview of the items that you will find elsewhere in this proxy statement.our 2018 performance, corporate governance, and compensation highlights. As this is only a summary, we encourage you to read the entire proxy statementProxy Statement for more information about these topics prior to voting.

ANNUAL MEETING OF SHAREOWNERS

 

TIME AND DATEApril 23, 2018, 10:30 a.m. EDT

PLACEHoneywell’s Headquarters, 115 Tabor Road, Morris Plains, New Jersey

RECORD DATEShareowners as of February 23, 2018 are entitled to vote.

ADMISSIONPlease follow the advance registration instructions onpage 91.

I  TIME AND DATEApril 29, 2019, 10:30 a.m. EDT
I  PLACEHoneywell’s Headquarters, 115 Tabor Road, Morris Plains, New Jersey 07950
I  RECORD DATEShareowners as of March 1, 2019 are entitled to vote
I  ADMISSIONPlease follow the advance registration instructions on page 96

MEETING AGENDA AND VOTING MATTERS

 

Proposal

    Board’s Voting
Recommendation
    Page References
(for more detail)Reference

No. 1

Election of Directors

    

LOGO  FOR (each nominee)

    pp. 6-11

p. 7

No. 2

Advisory Vote Toto Approve Executive Compensation

    

LOGO  FOR

    

p. 3037

No. 3

Approval of Independent Accountants

    

LOGO  FOR

    

p. 8284

No. 4

Management Proposal: Reduce Ownership Threshold Required To Call A Special Meeting Of Shareowners

   FOR

Shareowner Proposal-Right to Act by Written Consent

    p. 83
No. 5Shareowner Proposal: Independent Board Chairman

LOGO  AGAINST

     AGAINST

p. 86

No. 5

  pp. 84-86
No. 6

Shareowner Proposal: ReportProposal-Report on Lobbying Payments and Policy

    

LOGO  AGAINST

    pp. 86-88

p. 89

2018 PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS

LOGOFINANCIAL RESULTS – DELIVERED ON OUR COMMITMENTS TO SHAREOWNERS

Organic sales growth of 6%

Adjusted earnings per share growth of 12%
60 basis points of segment margin expansion

100% adjusted free cash flow conversion

LOGO

Reconciliation, notes, and definitions of non-GAAP financial measures used in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis section and elsewhere in this Proxy Statement, other than as part of disclosure of target levels, can be found on page 38 or in Appendix A.

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019

1



i  |

PROXY

SUMMARY

 

2017 HIGHLIGHTSLOGO  KEY LEADERSHIP APPOINTMENTS – DEEP LEADERSHIP BENCH SUPPORTED BY ROBUST SUCCESSION PLANNING

 

Gregory P. Lewis appointed as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer in charge of maintaining superior financial integrity while driving key financial performance metrics such as organic sales growth, segment margin expansion, and adjusted free cash flow conversion; seamless transition enabled by robust succession planning, which was overseen by our Board of Directors and followed the process and protocols developed by the Management Development and Compensation Committee

Vimal Kapur appointed as President and CEO of Honeywell Building Technologies; Vimal has established a successful track record in his 29 years with Honeywell including leading Honeywell Process Solutions where he transformed Honeywell Connected Plant capabilities

Torsten Pilz appointed as Senior Vice President and Chief Supply Chain Officer with a focus on integrated supply chain transformation and performance, and working capital improvements

Que Dallara appointed as President and CEO of Honeywell Connected Enterprise in charge of our connected software efforts and transformation to a technology-industrial company

LOGO  PORTFOLIO TRANSFORMATION – COMPLETED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS AND HOMES AND GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION SPINS

 

2018     |     Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners     |     i

Successfully spun Garrett Motion Inc. and Resideo Technologies, Inc., representing ~$8B in sales

Proxy Summary> 2017 Highlights

 

LEADERSHIP

Transformative and Pivotal Year in 2017 Under Darius Adamczyk

Successful CEO transition marked by renewed focus on organic growth, continued superior financial performance, and refocused strategic direction
Execution of comprehensive portfolio review, resulting in two announced tax-free spin-off transactions that will enable better focus on six key end markets and core technologies
Excellent performance resulting in 35% total shareowner return in 2017
Reinvigorating employee culture to become a software-industrial company

PORTFOLIO TRANSFORMATION

Announced Homes / Global Distribution and Transportation Systems Spin-Offs

Spinning off ~$7.5B in sales in two tax-free spin-off transactions to be completed by end of 2018
Remaining Honeywell portfolio consists of high-growth businesses with strong operational and technology synergies
Spun businesses will be better positioned to maximize shareowner value through focused strategic decision-makingSpun businesses better positioned to maximize shareowner value through focused strategic decision making and tailored capital allocation strategies

New Honeywell portfolio consists of high-growth businesses with strong operational and technology synergies, with the ability for all businesses to leverage our IT stack, Honeywell Sentience, as a foundation to build out customer-focused connected solutions

More focused portfolio poised for further outperformance in our core end markets:

LOGO

LOGO  CAPITAL DEPLOYMENT – EXECUTED SMART AND DISCIPLINED PLAN DURING VOLATILE MARKET        CONDITIONS

Announced a 10% dividend increase while completing two spins that reduced sales by nearly 20% - since 2010, we’ve increased the dividend rate nine times by 10% or more

Deployed over $0.5 billion to M&A with the addition of Transnorm and Ortloff Engineers, Ltd.

Repurchased $4.0 billion in Honeywell shares, lowering weighted average share count by more than 2%

Deployed more than $0.8 billion to high-return capital expenditures

2

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019



i  |

PROXY

SUMMARY

 

CAPITAL DEPLOYMENT

Executed Balanced Capital Deployment Plan, Achieving $5B Target

Repurchased ~$2.9B in Honeywell shares
Announced a 12% increase in our dividend — since 2010, we have increased the dividend rate by 10% or more eight times
Deployed ~$1B to capital expenditures

LOGOCREATING VALUE FOR OUR SHAREOWNERS — CUMULATIVE TOTAL SHAREOWNER RETURN (“TSR”)

Cumulative Total Shareowner Return (TSR)

 

LOGO

 

ii     |     Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners     |     2018

Proxy Summary> Significant Corporate Governance Actions In 2017

SIGNIFICANT CORPORATE GOVERNANCE ACTIONS IN 2017

Management Proposal to Decrease Threshold Needed to Call a Special Meeting to 15%

 Honeywell’s Board and Management are proposing that our Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation be amended to reduce the threshold needed for shareowners to call a special meeting from the current 20% to 15%.

Total Shareowner Return Percentile Rank Versus Peers

   
 The Board believes that its proposal is a thoughtful response to shareowner feedback indicating that many shareowners would appreciate the ability to call a special meeting if holders owning 15% of Honeywell shares were entitled to request a special meeting.

Recombined Roles of Chairman and CEO under Darius Adamczyk Following David Cote’s Retirement

One-Year

 

Three-Year

Five-Year

Ten-Year

 After thorough consideration, the Board determined that shareowners are best served if the roles of Chairman and CEO are combined in current CEO Adamczyk (seepage 13).
   
 The Board believes that Mr. Adamczyk has the character and quality of leadership to serve in both roles and that his service as both Chairman and CEO will enhance company performance.

Changes to Our Corporate Governance Guidelines to Improve Board Refreshment

 

Multi-Industry Peers = 100th Percentile

Before recommending re-nomination of incumbent directors, our Corporate Governance and Responsibility Committee (“CGRC”) will now evaluate whether the skills and perspectives of incumbent directors meet Honeywell’s needs, both individually and collectively.

Multi-Industry Peers = 100th Percentile

Multi-Industry Peers = 100th Percentile

Multi-Industry Peers = 100th Percentile

   

Compensation Peers = 82nd Percentile

Compensation Peers = 64th Percentile

Compensation Peers = 67th Percentile

Compensation Peers = 88th Percentile

Source: S&P Capital IQ

TSR is calculated by the growth in capital from purchasing a share in the company and assuming the dividends and share distributions received from any spins are reinvested in the applicable company at the time they are paid.

In 2018, we continued to stay the course and executed on our commitments to shareowners. We made substantial progress in advancing our strategic initiatives, transformed the Honeywell portfolio through two spins, gave back to the community, and upgraded the working experience for our employees. While our work in the community, for our customers, for our employees, and for our shareowners is not over, we are proud of the outstanding achievements we accomplished throughout the year.

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019

3



i  |

PROXY

SUMMARY

OUR 2019 DIRECTOR NOMINEES

LOGO

                        

Nominee

  Title    Years of
Service
    Independent    No. of Current Public
Company Boards
(including Honeywell)
    Committee
Memberships
                        

 

Darius Adamczyk

(Chairman and CEO)

  

 

Chairman and

Chief Executive Officer

Honeywell International Inc.

 

    

 

2

    

 

No

    

 

1

    

 

—  

 

Jaime Chico Pardo

(Lead Director)

  

 

President and

Chief Executive Officer

ENESA, S.A. de C.V.

    

 

19

    

 

Yes

    

 

3

    

 

CGRC

Retirement Plans

Ex officio: Audit, MDCC

 

Duncan B. Angove

  

 

Chief Executive Officer and

Managing Partner

Warmaug Partners LLC

    

 

1

    

 

Yes

    

 

1

    

 

MDCC

Retirement Plans

 

William S. Ayer

  

 

Retired Chairman and

Chief Executive Officer

Alaska Air Group, Inc.

    

 

4

    

 

Yes

    

 

1

    

 

CGRC

MDCC

 

Kevin Burke

  

 

Retired Chairman, President

and Chief Executive Officer

Consolidated Edison, Inc.

    

 

9

    

 

Yes

    

 

1

    

 

Audit

Retirement Plans

 

D. Scott Davis

  

 

Retired Chairman and

Chief Executive Officer

United Parcel Service, Inc.

    

 

13

    

 

Yes

    

 

2

    

 

MDCC (Chair)

Audit

 

Linnet F. Deily

  

 

Former Deputy United States Trade

Representative and Ambassador

    

 

13

    

 

Yes

    

 

1

    

 

CGRC (Chair)

Audit

 

Judd Gregg

  

 

Former Governor and

U.S. Senator of New Hampshire

    

 

8

    

 

Yes

    

 

2

    

 

Audit

CGRC

 

Clive Hollick

  

 

Former Chief Executive Officer

United Business Media

    

 

15

    

 

Yes

    

 

1

    

 

MDCC

Retirement Plans

 

Grace D. Lieblein

  

 

Former Vice President-Global Quality

General Motors Corporation

    

 

6

    

 

Yes

    

 

3

    

 

CGRC

MDCC

 

George Paz

  

 

Retired Chairman and

Chief Executive Officer

Express Scripts Holding Company

    

 

10

    

 

Yes

    

 

2

    

 

Audit (Chair)

CGRC

 

Robin L. Washington

  

 

Executive Vice President and

Chief Financial Officer

Gilead Sciences, Inc.

    

 

6

    

 

Yes

    

 

2

    

 

Retirement Plans (Chair)

Audit

CGRC refers to Corporate Governance and Responsibility Committee, and MDCC refers to Management Development and Compensation Committee.

4

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019



i  |

PROXY

SUMMARY

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE HIGHLIGHTS

SHAREOWNER

EMPOWERMENT AND

ENGAGEMENT

LOGO

15% threshold for shareowners to call a special meeting

  LOGOTheMajority vote to amend Certificate of Incorporation and By-laws
LOGOAnnual election of all directors, with majority voting in uncontested director elections
LOGONo poison pill – we will seek shareowner approval if a shareowner rights plan is adopted
LOGORobust year-round shareowner engagement, with Lead Director participation in shareowner discussions
LOGO

Proxy access enabling shareowner(s) holding 3% of our stock for three years to include up to two director nominees (or nominees representing 20% of the Board) in our proxy

DIVERSE AND

INDEPENDENT BOARD

OF DIRECTORS

LOGO

All director nominees are independent, except our CEO; no nominees with disclosable related-party transactions

LOGOLeader in Board is applying greater rigor around thediversity vis-à-vis personal characteristics (3 women, 3 Hispanics, 1 African-American, 2 non-U.S. citizens) and experiences (industry, profession, public service, geography)
LOGORange of tenures to facilitate effective oversight and balance between historical experience and fresh perspectives
LOGOSkills and background aligned to our strategic direction
LOGOClear, transparent director recruitment and selection process that formally prioritizes skills and qualifications and emphasizes leadership traits, work ethic, independence, business experience, and diversity of background
LOGO

No director may serve on more than four public company boards (including the Honeywell Board)

BEST-IN-CLASS

BOARD STRUCTURE

AND PROCESSES

LOGO

Independent Lead Director elected by independent directors, with expanded duties and responsibilities, including formal responsibility for working with the Corporate Governance and Responsibility Committee (CGRC) to lead new director selection and joint leadership of annual Board self-evaluation process

LOGORegular executive sessions of independent directors
LOGOAll members including a formal process for identificationof all committees are independent directors
LOGOLead Director and prioritization of skill sets by the Chair of the CGRC Chairman/CEO, and Lead Director.empowered to call special Board meetings at any time for any reason
  LOGO 
Duncan B. Angove was recruitedAnnual self-assessment to the Honeywellenable adequate Board refreshment and appropriate evolution of Board skills, experience and perspectives; results shared and discussed in early 2018 and demonstrates the Board’s commitment to refreshment withexecutive session of independent nominees possessing the perspective and experience to help propel the Company’s long-term strategy of becoming a world-leading software-industrial company. Mr. Angove has over 19 years of experience developing and commercializing software products and services for numerous industry verticals. Since 2010, Mr. Angove has served as a President of Infor, Inc., a provider of software solutions and platforms, as well as individual apps, that develops end-to-end operational systems and specific business processes for numerous industry verticals from chemicals to retail.

Improvements to the Board’s Self-Evaluation Process

We are using the self-evaluation process in a more structured way to elicit specific feedback on whether and how the Board needs to refresh its membership to better serve the long-term needs of shareowners, particularly in light of Honeywell’s evolving strategy.directors
  LOGO Annual refresh of Corporate Governance Guidelines to ensure alignment with best practices
  LOGOWe are reinforcing best practices to ensure that the self-evaluation process is meaningful, including sharing results

Director stock ownership guidelines require equity holdings of director surveys and questionnaires verbatim on an anonymous basis with the entire Board and discussing the resultsat least 5x annual cash retainer (actual ownership average of the annual self-evaluation with the full Board in executive session.

Strengthening of the Role of Lead Director

Honeywell’s Corporate Governance Guidelines were amended to add two new duties to the Lead Director’s role, specifically, making the Lead Director formally responsible for new director recruitment and selection and jointly responsible for leading the self-evaluation process (together with the Chair of the CGRC).

Ongoing Robust Dialogue Between Our Directors and Shareowners29x as of December 31, 2018)

 

ROBUST OVERSIGHT

OF RISKS AND

OPPORTUNITIES

  In 2017 we continued our strong tradition of meaningful engagement between our directors and largest shareowners. Our Lead Director and the Chair of the CGRC met with 11 of our shareowners in 2017 to discuss a range of pertinent governance matters, including the decision on whether to combine the roles of Chairman and CEO (seepage 4). The content of these meetings is shared with the entire Board and provides an extremely valuable perspective to the Board in its decision-making.

Other Changes You Will See In This Proxy Statement

 

LOGO

 The

Board has created a formal skills and experience matrixresponsible for risk oversight, with specific responsibility for key risk areas delegated to help ensure that it has the right perspective to appropriately exercise its independent oversight responsibilities (seepage iv).relevant Board committees

  LOGO Robust Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) program to enable Board identification and monitoring of key risks
  We increased the mandatory retirement age for directors from 72 to 75 to ensure Board continuity during a successful CEO succession process that was architected and “owned” by the current Board and during a period in which we are executing two complex spin-off transactions that resulted from a comprehensive portfolio review process overseen by the current Board.

2018     |     Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of ShareownersLOGO |     iiiPurposeful inclusion of key risk areas on Board and/or committee agendas, enabling continuous Board oversight of risk mitigation
  LOGOAnnual engagement with business leaders to discuss both short-term plans, long-term strategic opportunities and their associated risks
TableLOGOIncentive compensation not overly leveraged and with maximum payout caps and design features intended to balance pay for performance with the appropriate level of Contentsrisk-taking

Proxy Summary> Executive Compensation Snapshot

Broad SetLOGO

Clawbacks in the event of Backgrounds and Skills*

Name2018
Tenure
2018
Age
Senior
Leader
- ship
Indus-
try
GlobalFinan-
cial
Gov’tOther
Pub. Co.
Board
Exper.
Risk
Mgmt.
Innovation
&
Technology
Marketing
D. Adamczyk(President &CEO)152    
J. Chico Pardo(Lead Director)1868  
D. Angove051    
W. Ayer363  
K. Burke867  
D.S. Davis1266 
L. Deily1272  
J. Gregg771   
C. Hollick1472   
G. Lieblein557   
G. Paz962  
R. Washington555   

* Reflects anticipated composition at 2018 Annual Meeting of Shareowners

Independent and Highly Diverse Oversight*a significant restatement or violations of non-competition or non-solicitation agreements

 

Of the Independent Directors:

 

27%are WomenCOMMITMENT TO

SUSTAINABILITY

AND CORPORATE

RESPONSIBILITY

 

27%are HispanicLOGO

 

  9%Code of Business Conduct applies to all directors, officers, and employees

LOGOSuppliers expected to comply with published Supplier Code of Conduct, including conflict minerals, anti-human trafficking, business integrity, and health, safety, and environmental policies
LOGOUncompromising adherence to foundational principles of Integrity and Ethics, Supporting Diversity, and Workplace Respect, while fostering a performance culture based on our 8 Behaviors
LOGOOver 50% of executive officers are African Americandiverse by ethnic background, place of birth (non-U.S.) or gender
LOGONo use of corporate funds for political contributions and careful oversight and transparency with respect to political lobbying activities
LOGODemonstrated track record of exceeding our published greenhouse gas reduction and energy efficiency goals
LOGOHealth, Safety, Environment, Product Stewardship, and Sustainability management operating system, with quarterly CEO reviews and regular Board oversight drive our establishment and achievement of sustainability goals
LOGO

Honeywell Hometown Solutions, our corporate citizenship initiative, delivers high-impact social sustainability programming around the world

 

18%are Non-U.S. Citizens

 

Right Balance of Institutional Knowledge

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019

5


and Fresh Perspective*



i  |

PROXY

SUMMARY

 

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION SNAPSHOT

 

I  WHAT WE DO

I  WHAT WE DON’T DO

  LOGO

Pay for Performance.We closely align pay and performance, as a significant portion of target total direct compensation is at-risk. The Management Development and Compensation Committee (MDCC) validates this alignment annually and ensures performance-based compensation comprises a significant portion of executive compensation.

  LOGO

No Excessive Perks.We do not provide perquisites except in cases where there is a compelling business or security reason, nor do we provide gross-ups, except in limited cases for relocation.

  LOGO

Robust Performance Goals.We establish clear and measurable goals and targets and hold our executives accountable for achieving specified targets to earn a payout under our incentive plans. Performance goals are linked to operating priorities designed to create long-term shareowner value.

  LOGO

No Guaranteed Annual Salary Increases or Bonuses.Annual salary increases are based on evaluations of individual performance and the competitive market. In addition, we do not provide guarantees on bonus payouts.

  LOGO

Double Trigger in the Event of a Change-in-Control (CIC). We have double trigger vesting on equity and severance for CIC; executives will not receive cash severance nor will equity vest in the event of a CIC unless accompanied by qualifying termination of employment.

  LOGO

No New Excise Tax Gross-Ups and No Accelerated Bonus Payments Upon CIC.We eliminated gross-ups for excise taxes upon a CIC for any new officers since 2009. Plans provide that ICP awards earned in the year of a CIC would be paid at the time they would typically be paid based on business performance rather than target.

  LOGO

Maximum Payout Caps for Incentive Plans.Annual cash incentive compensation plan (ICP) and performance plan payouts are capped.

  LOGO

No Incentivizing of Short-Term Results to the Detriment of Long-Term Goals and Results. Pay mix is heavily weighted towards long-term incentives aligned with the interests of shareowners.

  LOGO

Clawback Practice.We maintain a policy that allows for recoupment of incentive compensation for any significant financial restatement or if an executive leaves the Company to join a competitor.

  LOGO

No Excessive Risks.Compensation practices are appropriately structured and avoid incentivizing employees to engage in excessive risk-taking.

  LOGO

Robust Stock Ownership Requirements.We require executives to hold meaningful amounts of stock and require them to hold 100% of net shares for one year from exercise or vesting.

  LOGO

No Hedging or Pledging. We do not allow hedging or pledging of our stock.

  LOGO

Independent Compensation Consultant.We retain an independent compensation consultant on behalf of the MDCC to review and advise the MDCC on executive compensation matters. The independent consultant attends all MDCC meetings.

  LOGO

No Consultant Conflicts.Under the MDCC’s established policy, the compensation consultant cannot provide any other services to Honeywell without the MDCC’s approval. Regular independence reviews are conducted.

2017 Total Annual Direct Compensation For Each Named Executive Officer (NEO)I  2018 EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

The following table reflects 2017 annualized2018 compensation amounts earned by the NEOsawarded or paid to our Named Executive Officers (NEOs) from the perspective of the MDCC*.

NEO Position Base
Salary
  Annual
Bonus
  Stock
Options
  2017-2019
Performance
Plan-PSUs(A)
 2016 Biennial-
Performance
RSUs(B)
 2016-2017
Growth Plan(C)
 Total Annual
Direct
Compensation
Darius Adamczyk President & CEO $1,414,615  $3,275,000  $3,596,400  $5,254,000  $1,671,875  $1,224,000  $16,435,890 
Thomas A. Szlosek SVP - Chief Financial Officer $865,039  $1,100,000  $1,798,200  $2,101,600  $1,337,500  $687,500  $7,889,839 
Timothy O. Mahoney Aerospace - President & CEO $963,615  $1,540,000  $2,064,600  $2,232,950  $2,006,250  $450,000  $9,257,415 
Krishna Mikkilineni SVP- Engineering, Ops and IT $785,769  $915,000  $1,798,200  $1,970,250  $1,471,250  $550,000  $7,490,469 
Rajeev Gautam PMT - President & CEO $717,885  $1,040,000  $1,165,500  $1,576,200  $668,750  $772,500  $5,940,835 
David M. Cote(D) Executive Chairman & Former CEO $900,962  $3,420,000  $9,990,000  $0  $0  $2,612,500  $16,923,462 

*Table reflects the view of the MDCC by annualizing 2016 biennial awards over a 2-year period (half of the award was attributed to 2016 and half to 2017), which differs from how amounts are reported on the SEC Summary Compensation Table. This is the last year reporting on this basis with normalizaton in 2018 as part of the changes to the executive compensation program.
(A)Grant date value of the first annual award of 3-year Performance Stock Units (PSUs).
(B)Reflects 2017 portion of the 2016 biennial Performance-based RSU grant with 100% of payout tied to Honeywell’s relative TSR performance against Compensation Peer Group over 3-years, followed by longer-term vesting period. Last such biennial RSU grant prior to compensation program changes.
(C)Annualized amount earned from the 2016 biennial Growth Plan grant for the 2016-2017 performance cycle. Portion attributable to 2017. Plan discontinued after this payout.
(D)Mr. Cote not included in broader compensation program changes for last full year of employment as Executive Chairman. The 2017 stock option grant to Mr. Cote, was made while in the CEO role and represented his last LTl grant from Honeywell. No other LTl was granted to Mr. Cote in 2017. Mr. Cote will receive no other compensation for the five-year consulting services arrangement included in his June 2016 CEO Continuity Agreement, which will begin when he leaves the Board in April of 2018. Earned Growth Plan award to be settled in stock, pursuant to 2016 MDCC decision to reduce value of his compensation paid in cash in response to shareowner feedback.

MDCC. See Compensation Discussion and Analysis beginning onpage 3138 for more details on 2017 Executive Compensation.2018 executive compensation.

                                  

NEO

  Position  Base
Salary
   Annual
Incentive
Plan (ICP)(1)
   2018-2020
Performance
Plan Units(2)
   Stock
Options(3)
   Restricted
Stock Units(4)
   Total Annual
Direct
Compensation
 
                                  

Darius Adamczyk

  Chairman and CEO  $1,571,154   $4,100,000   $6,375,720   $3,185,655   $3,185,495   $18,418,024 

Gregory P. Lewis

  SVP and Chief Financial Officer  $578,981   $730,000   $525,000   $591,250   $554,742   $2,979,973 

Timothy O. Mahoney

  President and CEO, Aerospace  $992,788   $1,840,000   $3,057,076   $1,523,060   $1,522,822   $8,935,746 

Krishna Mikkilineni

  SVP, Engineering and IT  $810,673   $930,000   $2,632,028   $1,307,845   $1,305,276   $6,985,822 

Mark R. James

  SVP, HR, Security and Communications  $774,231   $1,080,000   $2,354,112   $1,173,040   $1,165,425   $6,546,808 

Thomas A. Szlosek(5)

  Retired Chief Financial Officer  $560,481   $   $2,713,768   $1,348,050   $1,336,354   $5,958,653 

 

iv       |        (1)Proxy and Notice of

Annual Meeting of Shareowners     |     2018ICP payouts determined 80% based on a calculation against pre-set goals. The remaining 20% was based on individual assessments.

(2)

Grant date value of performance stock units (PSUs) issued for a new three-year performance period for all NEOs except Mr. Lewis. The amount for Mr. Lewis is the grant date value of performance cash units for the same three-year performance period, made prior to him becoming an officer of the Company.

(3)Table of Contents

All stock option grants awarded to NEOs vest ratably over four years, have a 10-year term, and are subject to stock ownership and post-exercise holding requirements.

Sustainability and Corporate Responsibility> Highlights Of Our Environmental And Safety Achievements

PROXY STATEMENT

This proxy statement is being provided to shareowners in connection with the solicitation of proxies by the Board of Directors for use at the Annual Meeting of Shareowners of Honeywell International Inc. (“Honeywell” or the “Company”) to be held on Monday, April 23, 2018.

SUSTAINABILITY AND CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY

Honeywell takes seriously its commitment to corporate social responsibility, protection of our environment, and creation of Sustainable Opportunity everywhere it operates.

Honeywell’s Sustainable Opportunity policy is based on the principle that by integrating health, safety, and environmental considerations into all aspects of its business, Honeywell:

(4)Protects its people

Restricted stock units vest over six-year periods and are subject to stock ownership and post-vesting holding requirements. The grant to Mr. Lewis, made prior to him becoming an officer of the environment;

Achieves sustainable growth and accelerated productivity;Company, vests in three years.

(5)Drives compliance with all applicable regulations;

2018-2020 Performance Plan Units and

Develops technologies that expand the sustainable capacity of our world. Stock Options granted to Mr. Szlosek in 2018 were forfeited upon his retirement.


Honeywell invents and manufactures technologies that address some of the world’s most critical challenges around energy, safety, security, productivity and global urbanization.

HIGHLIGHTS OF OUR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SAFETY ACHIEVEMENTS

GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY

 

Honeywell reports on its global greenhouse gas emissions publicly through CDP (formally Carbon Disclosure Project) and reports submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the United Kingdom Environment Agency. A qualified third party has provided limited assurance per ISO 14064-3 of Honeywell’s 2011-2016 Scope 1 and Scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions inventories.

 

Honeywell exceeded its first public goal to reduce global greenhouse gases by more than 30% and improve energy efficiency by more than 20% between 2004 and 2011.

6

 
A second five-year goal, set to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an additional 15% per dollar of revenue from 2011 levels, was met three years early.

LOGO

 

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019



By 2019, Honeywell will reduce its greenhouse gas emissions per dollar of revenue from 2013 levels by an additional 10%.01  |  

PROPOSAL 1:

ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

 

PROPOSAL 1:

WATER

Honeywell has developed a global inventory of water usage in its manufacturing operations and implements water conservation projects in areas experiencing “water stress.”

Since 2013, the Company has implemented more than 130 water conservation projects in “water stressed” areas, saving over 120 million gallons.

2018     |     Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners       |       1ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

Sustainability and Corporate Responsibility> Highlights Of Our Environmental And Safety Achievements

SAFETY

Honeywell utilizes a comprehensive Health, Safety, Environment, Product Stewardship and Sustainability Management System based on recognized third-party standards, including ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001, and industry best practices. The management system is fully integrated into the Honeywell Operating System, which drives continuous sustainable operational improvement. Compliance with standards and regulatory requirements is monitored through a company-wide, HSEPS-led audit process. The timely development and implementation of process improvements and corrective action plans are closely monitored.

 

Our global Total Case Incident Rate or “TCIR” (the numberCorporate Governance Guidelines set forth a clear vision statement for the composition of occupational injuriesHoneywell’s Board:

“The composition of Honeywell’s Board, as well as the perspective and illnesses per 100 employees) was 0.45 atskills of its individual members, needs to effectively support Honeywell’s growth and commercial strategy. Collectively, the endBoard must also be capable of 2017. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the weighted TCIR of the industries in which Honeywell participates is over 2.0.

Honeywell has received worker safety awards from governmentsoverseeing risk management, capital allocation, and organizations around the world.

Health, Safety, Environment, Product Stewardship and Sustainability (“HSEPS”) Management System

Honeywell’s HSEPS matters are managed by a global team of trained professionals with extensive knowledge and hundreds of years of collective experience in occupational health, chemistry, hydrology, geology, engineering, safety, industrial hygiene, materials management and energy efficiency.

Honeywell’s Vice President of HSEPS reports to the Company’s Senior Vice President and General Counsel and has overall responsibility for HSEPS programs. A Corporate Energy & Sustainability Team, led by the Vice President of HSEPS, the Vice President of Global Real Estateleadership succession. Board composition and the Directormembers’ perspective and skills should evolve at an appropriate pace to meet the challenges of Sustainability, helps drive the Company’s sustainabilityHoneywell’s changing commercial and strategic goals. Progress on these goals is reported to Honeywell’s CEO on a monthly basis and is reviewed

Consistent with the Board’s Corporate Governance and Responsibility Committee at least annually.

Honeywell’s Integrity and Compliance program

Honeywell’s Integrity and Compliance program reflects ourthis vision, and values and helps our employees, representatives, contractors, consultants, and suppliers comply with a high standard of business conduct globally. At the core of the Integrity and Compliance program is the Company’s Code of Business Conduct (the “Code”) that applies across the Company in all businesses and in all countries. All employees are required to complete Code of Business Conduct training and certify that they will comply with the Code. In addition, managers and executives certify on an annual basis that they will act in accordance with the Code.

The Code is a baseline set of requirements that enables employees to recognize and be aware of how to report integrity, compliance, and legal issues. In addition, the Code outlines our pledge to recognize the dignity of each individual, respect each employee, provide compensation and benefits that are competitive, promote self-development through training that broadens work-related skills, and value diversity of perspectives and ideas. The Code provides guidance and outlines expectations in a number of key integrity and compliance areas, including how employees should treat each other, conflicts of interest, HSEPS, books and records, anti-corruption and proper business practices, trade compliance, insider trading, data privacy, respect for human rights, and the appropriate use of information technology and social media.

In addition to the Code, Honeywell’s Integrity and Compliance program provides comprehensive training on key compliance topics, develops training scenarios, provides mechanisms for employees and third parties to report concerns, and ensures timely and fair reviews of integrity and compliance concerns through a best-in-class process to report and investigate Code of Business Conduct concerns.

Moreover, the Integrity and Compliance program includes, among other elements, a supplier Code of Conduct that flows down to Honeywell’s global supply chain to reinforce Honeywell’s expectation that its suppliers will also abide by our high standards of integrity and compliance, including our Conflict Minerals, Anti-Human Trafficking, Business Integrity, and Health, Safety, and Environmental policies.

Honeywell Hometown Solutions

Honeywell demonstrates its commitment to corporate social responsibility and community involvement through Honeywell Hometown Solutions, which focuses on five important societal needs that align with Honeywell’s culture, products and people: safety and security, housing and shelter, math and science education, habitat and conservation, and humanitarian relief.

2       |        Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners     |     2018

Political Contributions and Activities

These programs have delivered significant and meaningful results in communities around the world, including:

Offering academic opportunities that inspire students to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM), and providing teachers with new and innovative techniques to teach STEM education;

Partnering with environmental organizations to provide students with unique learning opportunities and teaching tools for educators to promote environmental science in the classroom;

Teaching parents and children potentially life-saving lessons to help avoid abduction and preventable childhood injuries;

Repairing homes and community centers for low-income families, the elderly and the disabled; and

Helping Honeywell employees and communities recover from natural disasters such as Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, Maria, Matthew and Sandy in the U.S.; wildfires in Alberta, Canada, and Colorado Springs; flooding in Louisiana and Romania; Super Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines; the Great Japan Earthquake and Tsunami; and earthquakes in Mexico, Haiti and China.

For more information about our sustainability and corporate citizenship programs, please visit our website atwww.honeywell.com, and Corporate Citizenship athttp://citizenship.honeywell.com/.

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS AND ACTIVITIES

Engagement in the political process is critical to our success. Our future growth depends on forward-thinking legislation and regulation that makes society safer and more energy efficient and improves public infrastructure. We strive to always engage responsibly in the political process and to ensure that our participation is fully consistent with all applicable laws and regulations, our principles of good governance, and our high standards of ethical conduct.

We have developed a strong team of government relations professionals based in Washington, D.C. who drive our lobbying programs and initiatives. Our government relations organization is led by the Senior Vice President, Global Government Relations. Members of the government relations organization work from a global network of offices.

MANAGEMENT AND BOARD OVERSIGHT

The law department oversees our lobbying activities. The Senior Vice President, Global Government Relations reports to the Company’s Senior Vice President and General Counsel (“General Counsel”) and also works closely with the Vice President, Global Compliance whose organization ensures compliance with our political spending policy. The General Counsel, Senior Vice President, Global Government Relations and Vice President, Global Compliance meet regularly with the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and his leadership team about legislative, regulatory and political developments.

With respect to Board of Directors oversight, our public policy efforts, including all lobbying activities, political contributions and payments to trade associations and other tax-exempt organizations, is the responsibility of the Corporate Governance and Responsibility Committee (“CGRC”), which consists entirely(CGRC) has responsibility for identifying a slate of independent, non-employee directors. Each yeardirector nominees who collectively have the complementary experience, qualifications, skills, and attributes to guide the Company and function effectively as a Board.

The CGRC receives an annual report on the Company’s policies and practices regarding political contributions. The CGRC’s oversight of our political activities ensures compliance with applicable law and alignment with our policies and our Code of Business Conduct. In addition,believes that each year the Senior Vice President, Global Government Relations reports to the CGRC on trade association political spending and to the full Board of Directors on our global lobbying and government relations program.

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

We have not made any political contributions using corporate funds since at least 2009 and have no present intention of making such political contributions in the future. Even before 2009, any such contributions were extremely rare and for minimal amounts of less than $5,000.

In 2013, we revised and expanded our disclosure on our policy and procedures for political activity and contributions. This disclosure is available on Honeywell’s website atwww.honeywell.com (see “Investors/Corporate Governance/Political Contributions”).

In 2017, the Center for Political Accountability (“CPA”), a non-profit, non-partisan organization, assessed our disclosure for its annual CPA-Zicklin Index of Corporate Political Disclosure and Accountability (“CPA-Zicklin Index”). The CPA-Zicklin Index measures the transparency, policies, and practices of the S&P 500. Our enhanced disclosure on political lobbying and contributions ranked usnominees presented in the “First Tier” of the 2017 CPA-Zicklin Index for the fourth year in a row. Our enhanced disclosure was also influenced by feedback received from our largest shareowners during our shareowner outreach initiative where we met with shareowners to discuss their views on several topics, including Honeywell’s disclosure on lobbying and political contributions.

For additional detail on Honeywell’s policies and processes on political contributions and lobbying, please see our response to Shareowner Proposal Number 6 onpages 86-88.

2018     |     Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners       |       3

Shareowner Outreach and Engagement

SHAREOWNER OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Understanding the issuesthis proxy has key personal attributes that are important to an effective board: integrity, candor, analytical skills, willingness to engage management and each other in a constructive and collaborative fashion, and ability and commitment to devote significant time and energy to service on the Board and its committees. The CGRC also considered the following specific experiences, qualifications, and skills, which Honeywell believes are critical in light of our shareownersstrategic priorities, and business objectives, operations, and structure.

DIRECTOR SKILLS AND QUALIFICATIONS

I  STRATEGIC SKILLS

Global Experience. Growing revenue outside of the United States, particularly in what we call “high growth regions” or “HGRs” such as China, India, Southeast Asia, Africa, and Latin America, is a central part of our long-term strategy for growth. Hence, exposure to markets and economies outside of the United States is an important qualification for our Board. This exposure can take many forms including government affairs, regulatory, managerial, or commercial.

Regulated Industries/Government Experience.Honeywell is subject to a broad array of government regulations, and demand for its products and services can be impacted by changes in law or regulation in areas such as aviation safety, security, and energy efficiency. Several of our directors have experience in regulated industries, providing them with insight and perspective in working constructively and proactively with governments and agencies globally.

Innovation and Technology.With Honeywell’s transformation to a software-industrial company in the digital age, expertise in combining software programming capabilities with leading-edge physical products and domain knowledge is critical to opening and securing new growth paths for all of Honeywell’s businesses.

Marketing. Developing new markets for our products and services is critical for driving growth. Our directors who have that expertise provide a much desired perspective on how to better market and brand our products and services.

Industries, End Markets, and Growth Areas.Experience in ensuringindustries, end markets, and growth areas that we address their interestsHoneywell serves – Commercial Aerospace, Industrial Productivity, Non-Residential, Oil and Gas / Petrochemical, Defense and Space, and Specialty Chemicals – enables a better understanding of the issues facing our businesses.

I  CORE COMPETENCIES

Senior Leadership Experience.Experience serving as CEO or a senior executive as well as hands-on leadership experience in a meaningfulcore management areas, such as strategic and effective way. It is also foundational to good corporate governance. In that light, we engage with our shareowners on a regular basis to discuss a range of topics including our performance, strategy,operational planning, financial reporting, compliance, risk management, executive compensation, and leadership development, provide a practical understanding of complex organizations like Honeywell.

Public Company Board Experience.Service on the boards and board committees of other public companies provides an understanding of corporate governance.governance practices and trends and insights into board management, relations between the board, the CEO and senior management, agenda setting, and succession planning.

Risk Management. In light of the Board’s role in risk oversight and our robust Enterprise Risk Management program, we seek directors who can help identify, manage, and mitigate key risks, including cybersecurity, regulatory compliance, competition, financial, brand integrity, human capital, and intellectual property.

Financial Expertise. We recognize the valuebelieve that an understanding of taking our shareowners’ views into account. Dialoguefinance and engagement with our shareowners helps us understand how they view us, set goals and expectationsfinancial reporting processes is important for our performance,directors to enable them to monitor and identify emerging issues that may affect our strategies, corporate governance, compensation practices or other aspects of our operations.

Our shareownerassess the Company’s operating and investor outreach and engagement takes many forms and is a year-round activity. We participate in numerous investor conferences and analyst meetings, hold our own investor events, some of which focus on individual businesses held at our facilities, and meet one-on-one with shareowners in a variety of contexts and forums. We also communicate with shareowners and other stakeholders through various media, including our annual report and SEC filings, proxy statement, news releases, and our website. We hold conference calls for our quarterly earnings releases and other major corporate events which are open to all. These calls are available in real time and as archived webcasts on our website.

Our Chairman, CEO, Chief Financial Officer, Vice President of Investor Relations and other senior management meet frequently with investors to discuss Honeywell’s strategy, financial and businessstrategic performance and to update investors on key developments. In addition, members of our Board, including our Lead Director, the Chair of our Corporate Governanceensure accurate financial reporting and Responsibility Committee (“CGRC”),robust controls. We seek directors with background and the Chair of our Management Developmentexperience in capital markets, corporate finance, accounting, and Compensation Committee (“MDCC”) meet with our large shareowners to discuss a range of issues including executive compensation and corporate governance.

GOVERNANCE AND COMPENSATION OUTREACH

Given the significant changes that occurred at Honeywell in the past year, our shareowner engagement during 2017 was particularly robust. We held 36 meetings with shareowners during the course of 2017 (representing approximately 36% of the shares outstanding) to discuss a wide range of governance and compensation issues, including:

•   The ’Say on Pay’ vote which occurred at our 2017 annual meeting;

•   Progress on the implementation of our CEO succession plan (seepage 13 for a description of the Board’s decision on whether to separate the roles of Chairman and CEO);

   The announcement in early 2017 of our intent to conduct a comprehensive portfolio review and the process we intend to employ;

   The subsequent conclusion of that portfolio review in October 2017 when we announced our intent to spin-off two significant business units and how we reached that conclusion;

   Significant improvements to our Corporate Governance Guidelines intended to facilitate ongoing Board refreshment which we describe onpage 12; and

   Whether to separate the roles of Chairman and CEO when our current Chairman, David M. Cote, retires in April 2018.

What we heard from our investors:

During our many shareowner interactions on the topics described above, we heard a diverse range of views. In general, our investors appreciated our transparency and the willingness by our senior executives and members of the Board to engage with, and listen to, shareowners. We summarize the feedback we heard below:

   Near universal satisfaction with the changes we made to our executive compensation programs prior to the 2017 annual meeting of shareowners, which resulted in approximately 93% of our shareowners voting in favor of ’Say on Pay’;

   Support for the portfolio review process undertaken by Honeywell management and overseen by the Board, which resulted in our announcement on October 10, 2017 to spin off our Homes product portfolio and ADI global distribution business,financial reporting as well as our Transportation Systems business, into two stand-alone, publicly-traded companies;


4       |        Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners     |     2018

Shareowner Outreach and Engagement> Governance and Compensation Outreachdirectors with “accounting or related financial management expertise” as defined in the New York Stock Exchange listing standards.

 

A range of views on whether the roles of Chairman and CEO should be recombined when our current Chairman, David M. Cote, retires as Executive Chairman at the April 2018 Annual Meeting of Shareowners. The majority of shareowners expressed the view that in light of Honeywell’s past and current financial and governance performance, the Honeywell Board should decide whether to separate the roles based on its assessment of what governance structure best serves the long-term interests of shareowners. A minority expressed the view that the roles of Chairman and CEO should be separate as a matter of best practice. Seepage 13 for a description of the Board’s decision on whether to separate the roles of Chairman and CEO; and

 

Widespread approval of the improvements we made to our Corporate Governance Guidelines intended to facilitate ongoing Board refreshment which we describe onpage 12.

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019

7



COMMUNICATING WITH MANAGEMENT AND INVESTOR RELATIONS

Our Investor Relations department is the primary point of contact for shareowner interaction with Honeywell. Shareowners should write to or call:

01  |

 

Mark Macaluso
Vice President, Investor Relations
Honeywell
115 Tabor Road, Morris Plains, NJ 07950
Phone: +1 (973) 455-2222PROPOSAL NO. 1:

Visit our website atwww.investor.honeywell.com

We encourage our shareowners to visit the Investors section of our website for more information on our investor relations and corporate governance programs.ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

 

BOARD SKILLSET MATRIX

In 2018, we adopted a Board skills and experience matrix to facilitate the comparison of our directors’ skills versus those skills deemed necessary to oversee our current strategy. We continue to refresh the matrix, and the skills included in the matrix are evaluated against our articulated strategy so that it can serve as an effective tool for identifying director nominees who collectively have the complementary experience, qualifications, skills, and attributes to guide our Company. Our 2019 Board skillset matrix is set forth below.

LOGO

PROCESS FOR COMMUNICATING WITH BOARD MEMBERS8

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019



01  |

 

Shareowners, as well as other interested parties, may communicate directly with the Lead Director for an upcoming meeting, the non-employee directors as a group, or individual directors by writing to:PROPOSAL NO. 1:

Honeywell
c/o Corporate Secretary
115 Tabor Road
Morris Plains, NJ 07950

Honeywell’s Corporate Secretary reviews and promptly forwards communications to the directors as appropriate. Communication involving substantive accounting or auditing matters are forwarded to the Chair of the Audit Committee. Certain items that are unrelated to the duties and responsibilities of the Board will not be forwarded such as: business solicitation or advertisements; product or service related inquires; junk mail or mass mailings; resumes or other job-related inquires; spam and overly hostile, threatening, potentially illegal or similarly unsuitable communications.ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

 

2018     |     Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners       |       5

COMMITMENT TO BOARD INTEGRITY,

DIVERSITY, AND INDEPENDENCE

In addition to ensuring that our director nominees possess the requisite skills and qualifications, the CGRC places an emphasis on ensuring that the nominees demonstrate the right leadership traits, personality, work ethic, independence, and diversity of background to align with our performance culture and our long-term strategic vision. Specifically, these criteria include:

Table of Contents

Exemplification of the highest standards of personal and professional integrity

Proposal No. 1: Election

Potential contribution to the diversity and culture of Directors> Director Nominations-Skillsthe Board, including by virtue of age, educational background, global perspective, gender, ethnicity, and Criterianationality

Independence from management under applicable securities law, listing regulations, and Honeywell’s Corporate Governance Guidelines

Willingness to constructively challenge management through active participation in Board and committee meetings

Ability to devote sufficient time to performing their Board and committee duties

While Honeywell’s Corporate Governance Guidelines do not prescribe a diversity policy or standards, as a matter of practice, we are committed to enhancing both the diversity of the Board itself and the perspectives and values that are discussed in Board and committee meetings. Our current Board composition reflects this approach and the Board’s commitment to diversity.

The CGRC also believes that, in addition to diversity of personal characteristics, and experiences, diversity of service tenures on the Honeywell Board also facilitates effective Board oversight. Directors with many years of service to Honeywell provide the Board with a deep knowledge of our Company, while newer directors lend fresh perspectives. Hence, careful consideration is made to achieve the appropriate balance.

 

LOGO

PROPOSAL NO. 1:NOMINATION AND ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

PROCESS

Honeywell’s directors are elected at each Annual Meeting of Shareowners and hold office for one-year terms or until their successors are duly elected and qualified. Honeywell’s By-laws provide that in any uncontested election of directors (an election in which the number of nominees does not exceed the number of directors to be elected), any nominee who receives a greater number of votes cast “FOR” his or her election than votes cast “AGAINST” his or her election will be elected to the Board of Directors.

The Board has nominated 12 candidates for election as directors. If any nominee should become unavailable to serve prior to the Annual Meeting, the shares represented by a properly signed and returned proxy card or voted by telephone, via the Internet or by scanning the QR code will be voted for the election of such other person as may be designated by the Board. The Board may also determine to leave the vacancy temporarily unfilled or reduce the authorized number of directors in accordance with the By-laws.

 

In 2017, the mandatory retirement age for directors was increased from 72 to 75. The retirement age increase was implemented to ensure Board continuity during a successful CEO succession process that the Board implemented in 2017 and during a period where we are undertaking a major portfolio realignment, including the spin-offs of two significant business units. As a result, directors may serve until the Annual Meeting of Shareowners immediately following their 75th birthday. For further detail on the increase in the mandatory retirement age, see “Summary of Improvements To Our Governance Guidelines in 2017” onpage 12.

DIRECTOR NOMINATIONS — SKILLS AND CRITERIA

The Corporate Governance and Responsibility Committee (“CGRC”) is responsible for nominating a slate of director nominees who collectively have the complementary experience, qualifications, skills and attributes to guide the Company and function effectively as a Board. In 2017, the Board reviewed its processes and procedures for nominating directors to ensure that the skills, experience and perspective of the Board, and the Board’s ability to periodically refresh those attributes, keeps pace with an evolving commercial strategy focused on Honeywell becoming a world-leading software industrial company. As a result of that review, the Board updated its Corporate Governance Guidelines so that director nominations are now subject to the following:
LOGO

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS A VOTEFOR THE ELECTION OF EACH OF THE DIRECTOR NOMINEES.

 

Before recommending for re-nomination a slate of incumbent directors for an additional term, the Corporate Governance and Responsibility Committee will evaluate whether incumbent directors possess the requisite skills and perspective, both individually and collectively.

With respect to the recruitment of new members, the Corporate Governance and Responsibility Committee has the responsibility for periodically identifying and recruiting new members to the Board.

As and when the Board considers adding new members, the Lead Director, CEO, Chairman and the Chair of the Corporate Governance and Responsibility Committee work together to identify and prioritize the specific skill sets, experience, and knowledge that candidates for election to the Board must possess.

Candidates are interviewed multiple times by the Chairman, CEO, Lead Director and other members of the Board to ensure that candidates not only possess the requisites skills and characteristics but also the personality, leadership traits, work ethic, and independence to effectively contribute as a member of the Board.

After this process, the Board nominates the successful candidate for election to the Board at the Annual Meeting of Shareowners. From time to time, the Board fills vacancies in its membership, using the same process described above, which arise between annual meetings of shareowners.

The CGRC believes that each of the nominees presented in this proxy has key personal attributes that are important to an effective board: integrity, candor, analytical skills, the willingness to engage management and each other in a constructive and collaborative fashion, and the ability and commitment to devote significant time and energy to service on the Board and its Committees.

The following list highlights other key experiences, qualifications and skills of our director nominees that are relevant and important in light of Honeywell’s businesses and structure.

 

6       |        

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners     Statement  |2018  2019

9



Proposal No. 1: Election of Directors> Director Nominations-Skills and Criteria

DIRECTOR SKILLS AND QUALIFICATIONS CRITERIA

 

PROPOSAL NO. 1:

Senior Leadership ExperienceELECTION OF DIRECTORS

 

Experience serving as CEO or a senior executive as well as hands-on leadership experience in core management areas, such as strategic and operational planning, financial reporting, compliance, risk management and leadership development provides a practical understanding of how complex organizations like Honeywell function.

Industry

Experience in industries, end-markets and growth segments that Honeywell serves, such as aerospace, automotive, construction, transportation, infrastructure, oil and gas, security and fire, energy efficiency and worker productivity and safety enables a better understanding of the issues facing our businesses.

Global Experience

Growing revenues outside of the United States, particularly in what we call “high growth regions” or “HGRs” such as China, India, Southeast Asia, Africa and Latin America is a central part of our long-term strategy for growth. Hence, exposure to markets and economies outside of the United States, particularly in HGRs, is an important qualification for our Board. This exposure can take many forms including government affairs, regulatory, managerial, commercial, linguistic or simply cultural.

Financial Expertise

We believe that an understanding of finance and financial reporting processes is important for our directors to monitor and assess the Company’s operating and strategic performance and to ensure accurate financial reporting and robust controls. Our director nominees have relevant background and experience in capital markets, corporate finance, accounting and financial reporting and several satisfy the “accounting or related financial management expertise” criteria set forth in the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) listing standards.

Regulated Industries/Government Experience

Honeywell is subject to a broad array of government regulations, and demand for its products and services can be impacted by changes in law or regulation in areas such as safety, security and energy efficiency. Several of our directors have experience in regulated industries, providing them with insight and perspective in working constructively and proactively with governments and agencies globally.

Public Company Board Experience

Service on the boards and board committees of other public companies provides an understanding of corporate governance practices and trends and insights into board management, relations between the board, the CEO and senior management, agenda setting and succession planning.

Risk Management

In light of the Board’s role in risk oversight and our robust enterprise risk management program, we seek directors who can help manage and mitigate key risks, including cybersecurity, regulatory compliance, competition, financial, brand integrity and intellectual property risks.

Innovation and Technology

With Honeywell’s transformation to a software-industrial company in the digital age, expertise in combining software programming capabilities with leading-edge physical products and domain knowledge is critical to opening and securing new growth paths for all of Honeywell’s businesses.

Marketing

Developing new markets for our products and services is critical for driving growth. Our directors who have that expertise provide a much desired perspective on how to better market and brand our products and services.

 

Each of the nominees, other than Mr. Adamczyk, is independent of the Company and management. See “Director Independence” onpage 21 of this proxy statement.

The CGRC also considered the specific experience described in the biographical details that follow in determining to nominate the following individuals for election as directors.

The Board of Directors unanimously recommends a vote FOR the election of each of the director nominees.

2018     |     Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners       |       7

Proposal No. 1: Election of Directors> Nominees for Election

NOMINEES FOR ELECTION

 

DARIUS ADAMCZYK, President and Chief Executive Officer of Honeywell International Inc.

YearsDARIUS

ADAMCZYK

Chairman and

Chief Executive Officer,

Honeywell

International Inc.

About

Mr. Adamczyk has been the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Service: 1
Age: 52

Honeywell since April 2018. Mr. Adamczyk was President and Chief Executive Officer from March 2017 to April 2018 and Chief Operating Officer from April 2016 to March 2017. From April 2014 to April 2016, Mr. Adamczyk served as President and CEO of Honeywell Performance Materials and Technologies (PMT). Prior to serving as President and CEO of PMT, Mr. Adamczyk served as President of Honeywell Process Solutions from 2012 to 2014. When he joined Honeywell in 2008, he became President of Honeywell Scanning and Mobility from 2008 to 2012. Mr. Adamczyk began at Honeywell when Metrologic, Inc., where he was the Chief Executive Officer, was acquired by Honeywell. Prior to joining Honeywell, Mr. Adamczyk held several general management assignments at Ingersoll Rand, served as a senior associate at Booz Allen Hamilton, and started his career as an electrical engineer at General Electric.

Mr. Adamczyk is the President and Chief Executive Officer of Honeywell since March 2017. He will become Chairman upon Mr. Cote’s retirement at the 2018 Annual Meeting of Shareowners. Mr. Adamczyk was President and Chief Operating Officer from April 2016 to March 2017. From April 2014 to April 2016, Mr. Adamczyk served as President and CEO of Honeywell Performance Materials and Technologies (“PMT”). Prior to serving as President and CEO of PMT, Mr. Adamczyk served as President of Honeywell Process Solutions from 2012 to 2014. When he joined Honeywell in 2008, he became President of Honeywell Scanning & Mobility from 2008 to 2012. Mr. Adamczyk began at Honeywell when Metrologic, Inc., where he was the Chief Executive Officer, was acquired by Honeywell. Prior to joining Honeywell, Mr. Adamczyk held several general management assignments at Ingersoll Rand, served as a senior associate at Booz Allen Hamilton, and started his career as an electrical engineer at General Electric.


LOGO

Specific Qualifications, Attributes, Skills, and Experience

Senior leadership roles in global organizations, both large and small

Deep understanding of software, both technically and commercially, and a proven track record in growing software-related businesses at Honeywell

Demonstrated ability to deliver financial results as a leader in a variety of different industries, with disparate business models, technologies, and customers

Strategic leadership skills necessary to grow Honeywell revenuessales organically and inorganically while meeting the challenges of a constantly changing environment across Honeywell’s diverse business portfolio

DUNCAN B. ANGOVE, President of Infor, Inc.

Years of Service: 0
Age: 51
LOGO

DUNCAN B.

ANGOVE

 

• Management Development & CompensationChief Executive Officer
and Managing Partner, Warmaug Partners LLC

• Retirement Plans

About

Since 2018, Mr. Angove has been CEO and Managing Partner of Warmaug Partners LLC, a private equity firm focused on delivering superior financial returns through the application of financial capital and digital transformation. Previously, from 2010 to 2018, Mr. Angove was President of Infor, Inc., a privately held provider of enterprise software and a strategic technology partner for more than 90,000 organizations worldwide. Infor’s software is purpose-built for specific industries, from manufacturing to healthcare, providing complete suites that are designed to support end-to-end business processes and digital transformation. Previously, Mr. Angove served as the Senior Vice President and General Manager of the Retail Global Business Unit for Oracle Corporation, a global technology provider of enterprise software, hardware, and services, from 2005 to 2010. He joined Oracle through its acquisition of Retek Inc., then a publicly traded provider of software solutions and services to the retail industry, where he served in various roles of increasing responsibility from 1997 until 2005.

Since 2010, Mr. Angove has been President of Infor, Inc., a privately-held provider of enterprise software and a strategic technology partner for more than 90,000 organizations worldwide. The software is purpose-built for specific industries, from manufacturing to healthcare, providing complete suites that are designed to support end-to-end business processes and digital transformation. Previously, Mr. Angove served as the Senior Vice-President and General Manager of the Retail Global Business Unit for Oracle Corporation, a global technology provider of enterprise software, hardware and services, from 2005 to 2010. He joined Oracle through its acquisition of Retek Inc., then a publicly-traded provider of software solutions and services to the retail industry, where he served in various roles of increasing responsibility from 1997 until 2005.


LOGO

Specific Qualifications, Attributes, Skills, and Experience

Senior technology industry leader with global operating experience including in software and digital transformation

Deep understanding of the trends across enterprise cloud, infrastructure software, digital, and the internetInternet of thingsThings, and skilled at driving value creation

Extensive experience in corporate strategy, M&A, sales, marketing, and business and product development

LOGO

10

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019



01  |

PROPOSAL NO. 1:

ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

 

WILLIAM S. AYER, Retired Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Alaska Air Group, Inc. (Alaska Air Group)

 

WILLIAM S.

AYER

Retired Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer, Alaska Air Group, Inc.

  

Years of Service: 3
Age: 63
About

 

Mr. Ayer is the retired Chairman of the Board Committees:

• Corporate Governance & Responsibility

• Management Development & Compensation

and Chief Executive Officer of Alaska Air Group, Inc. (Alaska Air Group), the parent company of Alaska Airlines and its sister carrier, Horizon Air. Mr. Ayer served as Chief Executive Officer of Alaska Air Group and its subsidiaries through 2012, and as Chairman through 2013. A veteran of more than three decades in aviation, Mr. Ayer began his career with Horizon Air in 1982 where he held a variety of marketing and operations positions. He joined Alaska Airlines in 1995 as Vice President of Marketing and Planning, and subsequently held the posts of Senior Vice President, Chief Operating Officer, and President. In 2002, he became Alaska Air Group’s Chief Executive Officer, and, in May 2003, he was appointed Chairman. Mr. Ayer was a director of Puget Sound Energy, Inc. and Puget Energy, Inc., from January 2005 until January 2015 and served as Chairman from January 2009 until January 2015.

Mr. Ayer is the retired Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Alaska Air Group, the parent company of Alaska Airlines and its sister carrier, Horizon Air. Mr. Ayer served as Chief Executive Officer of Alaska Air Group and its subsidiaries through 2012, and as Chairman through 2013. A veteran of more than three decades in aviation, Mr. Ayer began his career with Horizon Air in 1982 where he held a variety of marketing and operations positions. He joined Alaska Airlines in 1995 as Vice President of Marketing and Planning, and subsequently held the posts of Senior Vice President, Chief Operating Officer, and President. In 2002, he became Alaska Air Group’s Chief Executive Officer, and, in May 2003, he was appointed Chairman. Mr. Ayer was a director of Puget Sound Energy, Inc. and Puget Energy, Inc. from January 2005 until January 2015 and served as Chairman from January 2009 until January 2015.


LOGO

Specific Qualifications, Attributes, Skills, and Experience

Deep aerospace industry knowledge as well as sales, marketing, and operations experience through his three decades of leadership roles at Alaska Air Group, recognized for its best-in-class operating metrics among U.S. air carriers

Proven leadership skills in developing a business enterprise that can deliver long-term, sustained excellence based on a management style that includes a relentless focus on the customer, continuous improvement, and building a culture of safety, innovation, sustainability, and diversity

Understanding of the U.S. public utility industry through his service as a director on the Board of Puget Energy

LOGO

KEVIN

BURKE

 


Leadership

Industry

Global

Financial

Government

Public Company

Risk Management

Technology

Marketing

Retired Chairman,

8       |        Proxy

President and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners     |     2018

Proposal No. 1: Election of Directors> Nominees for Election

Chief Executive Officer,

Consolidated Edison, Inc.

 

KEVIN BURKE, Retired Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Consolidated Edison, Inc. (Con Edison)

  

Years of Service: 8
Age: 67
About

 

Mr. Burke joined Consolidated Edison, Inc. (Con Edison), a utility provider of electric, gas, and steam services, in 1973 and held positions of increasing responsibility in system planning, engineering, law, nuclear power, construction, and corporate planning. He served as Senior Vice President from July 1998 to July 1999, with responsibility for customer service and for Con Edison’s electric transmission and distribution systems. In 1999, Mr. Burke was elected President of Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc., a subsidiary of Con Edison. He was elected President and Chief Operating Officer of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., in 2000 and elected Chief Executive Officer in 2005. Mr. Burke served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Con Edison from 2005 through 2013, and was elected Chairman in 2006. Mr. Burke became non-executive Chairman of Con Edison in December 2013 and served in that capacity until April 2014. Mr. Burke was a member of the Board Committees:

• Audit

• Retirement Plans

of Directors of Con Edison and a member of the Board of Trustees of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., which is a subsidiary of Con Edison, until May 2015.

Mr. Burke joined Con Edison, a utility provider of electric, gas and steam services, in 1973 and held positions of increasing responsibility in system planning, engineering, law, nuclear power, construction, and corporate planning. He served as Senior Vice President from July 1998 to July 1999, with responsibility for customer service and for Con Edison’s electric transmission and distribution systems. In 1999, Mr. Burke was elected President of Orange & Rockland Utilities, Inc., a subsidiary of Con Edison. He was elected President and Chief Operating Officer of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. in 2000 and elected Chief Executive Officer in 2005. Mr. Burke served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Con Edison from 2005 through 2013, and was elected Chairman in 2006. Mr. Burke became non-executive Chairman of Con Edison in December 2013 and served in that capacity until April 2014. Mr. Burke was a member of the Board of Directors of Con Edison and a member of the Board of Trustees of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. which is a subsidiary of Con Edison, until May 2015.


LOGO

Specific Qualifications, Attributes, Skills, and Experience

Extensive management expertise gained through various executive positions, including senior leadership roles, at Con Edison

Wealth of experience in energy production and distribution, energy efficiency, alternative energy sources, engineering and construction, government regulation, and development of new service offerings

Significant expertise in developing clean and renewable energy infrastructure technology used in clean energy, solar generation, and other energy efficient products and services

Oversaw the implementation of financial and management information systems, utility operational systems, and process simulators

Deep knowledge of corporate governance and regulatory issues facing the energy, utility, and service industries

LOGO

 

JAIME CHICO PARDO, President and Chief Executive Officer, ENESA, S.A. de C.V. (ENESA)

 

LOGO

 

Years of Service: 18
Age: 68
|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019

11



01  |

PROPOSAL NO. 1:

ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

JAIME

CHICO PARDO

 

Lead DirectorPresident and

Chief Executive Officer,

ENESA, S.A. de C.V.

About

 

Ex officio memberMr. Chico Pardo has been President and Chief Executive Officer of eachENESA, S.A. de C.V. (ENESA), a private fund investing in the Mexican energy and health care sectors since March 2010. He previously served as Co-Chairman of the Board Committeeof Telefonos de Mexico, S.A.B. de C.V. (TELMEX), a telecommunications company based in Mexico City, from April 2009 until April 2010, as its Chairman from October 2006 to April 2009, and as its Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer from 1995 until 2006. Mr. Chico Pardo was Co-Chairman of the Board of Impulsora del Desarrollo y el Empleo en América Latina, S.A. de C.V., a publicly listed company in Mexico engaged in investment in and management of infrastructure assets in Latin America, from 2006 until 2010. He also was Chairman of Carso Global Telecom, S.A. de C.V. from 1996 until 2010. Prior to joining TELMEX, Mr. Chico Pardo served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Grupo Condumex, S.A. de C.V. and Euzkadi/General Tire de Mexico, manufacturers of products for the construction, automotive, and telecommunications industries. Mr. Chico Pardo also has spent a number of years in the international and investment banking business. Mr. Chico Pardo is a director of Grupo Bimbo, S.A.B. de C.V. and PROMECAP Acquisition Company, S.A.B. de C.V. He previously served as a director of AT&T (2008-2015), Grupo Carso, S.A. de C.V. and several of its affiliates (1991-2013), three mutual funds in the American Funds family of mutual funds (2011-2013) and Honeywell Inc. from September 1998 to December 1999.

LOGO

Specific Qualifications, Attributes, Skills, and Experience

Mr. Chico Pardo has been President and Chief Executive Officer of ENESA, a private fund investing in the Mexican energy and health care sectors since March 2010. He previously served as Co-Chairman of the Board of Telefonos de Mexico, S.A.B. de C.V. (TELMEX), a telecommunications company based in Mexico City, from April 2009 until April 2010 and as its Chairman from October 2006 to April 2009 and its Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer from 1995 until 2006. Mr. Chico Pardo was Co-Chairman of the Board of Impulsora del Desarrollo y el Empleo en América Latina, S.A. de C.V., a publicly listed company in Mexico engaged in investment in and management of infrastructure assets in Latin America, from 2006 until 2010. He was also Chairman of Carso Global Telecom, S.A. de C.V. from 1996 until 2010. Prior to joining TELMEX, Mr. Chico Pardo served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Grupo Condumex, S.A. de C.V. and Euzkadi/General Tire de Mexico, manufacturers of products for the construction, automotive and telecommunications industries. Mr. Chico Pardo has also spent a number of years in the international and investment banking business. Mr. Chico Pardo is a director of Grupo Bimbo, S.A.B. de C.V. He previously served as a director of AT&T (2008-2015), Grupo Carso, S.A. de C.V. and several of its affiliates (1991-2013), three mutual funds in the American Funds family of mutual funds (2011-2013) and Honeywell Inc. from September 1998 to December 1999.


Specific Qualifications, Attributes, Skills and Expertise

Broad international exposure through senior leadership roles in Latin American companies in the telecommunications, automotive, manufacturing, engineering, and construction industries

Expertise in the management of infrastructure assets and international business, operations, and finance focused on Latin America

Broad experience with investment strategies in innovation and technology to support the energy, healthcare, and telecommunications industries in Mexico and Latin America

Enhanced perspectives on corporate governance, risk management, and other issues applicable to public companies

 

D. SCOTT DAVIS, Retired Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS)

 

LOGO

D. SCOTT

DAVIS

Retired Chairman and

Chief Executive Officer,

United Parcel Service, Inc.

  

Years of Service: 12
Age: 66
About

 

Mr. Davis joined United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS), a leading global provider of package delivery, specialized transportation, and logistics services in 1986. He served as the non-Executive Chairman of UPS from September 2014 until May 2016. Prior to his retirement as Chief Executive Officer of UPS, Mr. Davis served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer from January 1, 2008 to September 2014. Prior to this, he served as Vice Chairman since December 2006 and as Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer since January 2001. Previously, Mr. Davis held various leadership positions with UPS, primarily in the finance and accounting areas. During his tenure at UPS, Mr. Davis served a critical role in helping UPS to reinvent itself into a technology company. Prior to joining UPS, he was Chief Executive Officer of II Morrow Inc., a technology company and developer of general aviation and marine navigation instruments. Mr. Davis is a Certified Public Accountant. He also is a director of Johnson and Johnson. Mr. Davis previously served on the Board Committees:

Management Development & Compensation Committee Chairperson

Audit

 of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (2003-2009), serving as Chairman in 2009, and as a director of EndoChoice Holdings (2015-2016).

Mr. Davis joined UPS, a leading global provider of package delivery, specialized transportation and logistics services in 1986. He served as the non-Executive Chairman of UPS from September 2014 until May 2016. Prior to his retirement as Chief Executive Officer of UPS, Mr. Davis served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer from January 1, 2008 to September 2014. Prior to this, he served as Vice Chairman since December 2006 and as Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer since January 2001. Previously, Mr. Davis held various leadership positions with UPS, primarily in the finance and accounting areas. During his tenure at UPS, Mr. Davis served a critical role in helping UPS to reinvent itself into a technology company as well as transportation. Prior to joining UPS, he was Chief Executive Officer of II Morrow Inc., a technology company and developer of general aviation and marine navigation instruments. Mr. Davis is a Certified Public Accountant. He is also a director of Johnson & Johnson. Mr. Davis previously served on the Board of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (2003-2009), serving as Chairman in 2009, and EndoChoice Holdings (2015-2016).


LOGO

Specific Qualifications, Attributes, Skills, and Experience

Significant expertise in management, strategy, finance, and operations gained over 25 years at UPS including through senior leadership roles

Financial management expertise, including financial reporting, accounting, and controls

Strong banking experience and a deep understanding of public policy and global economic indicators

Extensive experience in the transportation and logistics services industry

In-depth understanding of technology and software solutions that support automated and web-based shipping, tracking, and specialized transportation Logisticslogistics

LOGO

 


Leadership

Industry

Global

Financial

Government

Public Company

Risk Management

Technology

12

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019




Marketing01  |

PROPOSAL NO. 1:

ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

 

2018     |     Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners       |       9

Proposal No. 1: Election of Directors> Nominees for Election

LINNET F. DEILY, Former Deputy U.S. Trade Representative and Ambassador

Years of Service: 12
Age: 72
LINNET F.

DEILY

 

Board Committees:Former

• Corporate Governance & Responsibility Committee Chairperson

• AuditDeputy U.S. Trade Representative and Ambassador

 

Ms. Deily was Deputy U.S. Trade Representative and U.S. Ambassador to the World Trade Organization from 2001 to 2005. From 2000 until 2001, she was Vice Chairman of The Charles Schwab Corp. Ms. Deily served as President of the Schwab Retail Group from 1998 until 2000 and President of Schwab Institutional-Services for Investment Managers from 1996 to 1998. Prior to joining Schwab, she was the Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President of First Interstate Bank of Texas from 1990 until 1996. She is also a director of Chevron Corporation.


About

Ms. Deily was Deputy U.S. Trade Representative and U.S. Ambassador to the World Trade Organization from 2001 to 2005. From 2000 until 2001, she was Vice Chairman of The Charles Schwab Corp. Ms. Deily served as President of the Schwab Retail Group from 1998 until 2000 and President of Schwab Institutional-Services for Investment Managers from 1996 to 1998. Prior to joining Schwab, she was the Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer, and President of First Interstate Bank of Texas from 1990 until 1996. She retired as a director of Chevron Corporation in May 2018.

LOGO

Specific Qualifications, Attributes, Skills, and Experience

Unique global and governmental perspectives regarding international trade, capital markets, public policy, telecommunications, information services, corporate finance, refinery, and petrochemical industries

Extensive experience leading international trade negotiations and detailed knowledge and insight into challenges and opportunities related to government relations

Broad experience managing technology platforms for investment managers and retail clients

Significant financial experience through senior leadership roles in banking, brokerage, and financial services companies

Substantial experience as a Fortune 500 company director

LOGO

JUDD

GREGG

Former

Governor and

U.S. Senator of

JUDD GREGG, Former Governor and U.S. Senator of New Hampshire

 

  

Years of Service: 7
Age: 71
About

 

Board Committees:

Corporate Governance &Senator Gregg has spent over three decades in public office, most recently serving as the United States Senator from the State of New Hampshire from January 1993 until January 2011. During his tenure in the Senate, Senator Gregg served on a number of key Senate Committees including Budget; Appropriations; Government Affairs; Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs; Commerce, Science and Transportation; Foreign Relations; and Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. He has served as the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee as well as chairman of various sub-committees. Senator Gregg served as a chief negotiator of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 and was the lead sponsor of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, and, along with the late Senator Ted Kennedy, co-authored the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. In March 2010, Senator Gregg was appointed to President Obama’s bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility

Audit

  and Reform. From 1989 to 1993, Senator Gregg was the Governor of New Hampshire and prior to that was a U.S. Representative from 1981 to 1989. Senator Gregg was named as Dartmouth College’s first distinguished fellow and he teaches at the college and its graduate schools. He also serves as a director of Evoqua Corporation. Senator Gregg previously served as a director of Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (2011-2013).

Senator Gregg has spent over three decades in public office, most recently serving as the United States Senator from the State of New Hampshire from January 1993 until January 2011. During his tenure in the Senate, Senator Gregg served on a number of key Senate Committees including Budget; Appropriations; Government Affairs; Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs; Commerce, Science and Transportation; Foreign Relations; and Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. He has served as the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee as well as chairman of various sub-committees. Senator Gregg served as a chief negotiator of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 and was the lead sponsor of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, and, along with the late Senator Ted Kennedy, co-authored the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. In March 2010, Senator Gregg was appointed to President Obama’s bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. From 1989 to 1993, Senator Gregg was the Governor of New Hampshire and prior to that was a U.S. Representative from 1981 to 1989. Senator Gregg was named as Dartmouth College’s first distinguished fellow and he teaches at the college and its graduate schools. He also serves as a director of Evoqua Corporation. Senator Gregg previously served as a director of Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (2011-2013).


LOGO

Specific Qualifications, Attributes, Skills, and Experience

Deep understanding and experience in local, state, national, and international issues

Extensive experience in government, public policy, financial regulatory reform, banking, tax, capital markets, science, renewable technology and research, environmental protection and conservation, healthcare, and foreign policy

Significant insight into fiscal affairs, governmental relations, legislative, and regulatory issues

LOGO

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019

13



01  |

PROPOSAL NO. 1:

ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

 

CLIVE HOLLICK, Former Chief Executive Officer of

CLIVE

HOLLICK

Former

Chief Executive Officer,

United Business Media

 

  

Years of Service: 14
Age: 72
About

 

Board Committees:

Management Development & Compensation

Retirement Plans

 Lord Hollick was Chief Executive Officer of United Business Media and its predecessor companies from 1974 to 2005. United was a London-based, international information, broadcasting, financial services, and publishing group. From 2005 to 2010, he was a partner, managing director, and adviser to Kohlberg Kravis Roberts and Co., a private equity firm focusing on businesses in the media and financial services sectors. In addition, Lord Hollick was Chairman of the Economic Affairs Committee of the House of Lords. He previously served as a director of ProSiebenSat. 1 Media AG (2007-2014), Gogo Inc. (2013-2014), The Nielsen Company B.V. (2006-2009), Diageo plc (2001-2011), TRW Inc. (2000-2002), and BAE Systems (1992-1997).

Lord Hollick was Chief Executive Officer of United Business Media and its predecessor companies from 1974 to 2005. United was a London-based, international information, broadcasting, financial services and publishing group. From 2005 to 2010, he was a partner, managing director and adviser to Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., a private equity firm focusing on businesses in the media and financial services sectors. Lord Hollick is a partner of GP Bullhound LLP and a member of the Advisory Board of Jefferies Inc. In addition, Lord Hollick was Chairman of the Economic Affairs Committee of the House of Lords. He previously served as a director of ProSiebenSat. 1 Media AG (2007-2014), Gogo Inc. (2013-2014), The Nielsen Company B.V. (2006-2009), Diageo plc (2001-2011), TRW Inc. (2000-2002) and BAE Systems (1992-1997).


LOGO

Specific Qualifications, Attributes, Skills, and Experience

Management expertise, and diverse perspective on international markets, and media experience gained through over 30 years as the leader of United Business Media

Deep knowledge of public policy and trends in the UK and European markets

In-depth understanding of the operating environment in the UK and Europe particularly with respect to information and financial services, broadcasting, publishing and online media, marketing and branding, technology, and innovation

Substantial experience in mergers and acquisitions in the media and financial services sectors, including in a private equity context

LOGO

GRACE D.

LIEBLEIN

 


Leadership

Industry

Global

Financial

Government

Public Company

Risk Management

Technology

Marketing

Former

10       |        Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners     |     2018

Proposal No. 1: Election of Directors> Nominees for Election

Vice President-Global

Quality, General

Motors Corporation

 

GRACE D. LIEBLEIN, Former Vice President-Global Quality of General Motors Corporation (GM)

  

Years of Service: 5
Age: 57
About

 

Board Committees:

Corporate Governance & Responsibility

Management Development & Compensation

 Ms. Lieblein served as Vice President, Global Quality of General Motors (GM), a company that designs, manufactures and markets cars, crossovers, trucks, and automobile parts worldwide from November 2014 to March 2016. Ms. Lieblein served as Vice President, Global Purchasing and Supply Chain from December 2012 to November 2014, the GM Brazil President and Managing Director from June 2011 until December 2012, the GM Mexico President and Managing Director from January 2009 until June 2011 and Vehicle Chief Engineer from October 2004 to January 2009. Ms. Lieblein joined GM in 1978 as a co-op student at the General Motors Assembly Division in Los Angeles and has held a variety of leadership positions at GM in engineering, product development and manufacturing. Ms. Lieblein also is a director of Southwest Airlines Co. and American Tower Corporation.

Ms. Lieblein served as Vice President, Global Quality of GM, a company that designs, manufactures and markets cars, crossovers, trucks, and automobile parts worldwide from November 2014 to March 2016. Ms. Lieblein served as Vice President, Global Purchasing and Supply Chain from December 2012 to November 2014, the GM Brazil President and Managing Director from June 2011 until December 2012, the GM Mexico President and Managing Director from January 2009 until June 2011 and Vehicle Chief Engineer from October 2004 to January 2009. Ms. Lieblein joined GM in 1978 as a co-op student at the General Motors Assembly Division in Los Angeles and has held a variety of leadership positions at GM in engineering, product development and manufacturing. Ms. Lieblein is also a director of Southwest Airlines Co. and American Tower Corporation.


LOGO

Specific Qualifications, Attributes, Skills, and Experience

Wide-ranging management and operating experience gained through various executive positions induring an extensive career at GM

Significant expertise in supply chain management, global manufacturing, engineering, technology, and product design and development

International business, operations, and finance experience gained through senior leadership positions in Brazil and Mexico

LOGO

14

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019



01  |

PROPOSAL NO. 1:

ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

 

GEORGE PAZ, Chairman and Retired Chief Executive Officer of Express Scripts Holding Company (Express Scripts)

 

GEORGE

PAZ

Retired Chairman and

Chief Executive Officer,

Express Scripts

Holding Company

  

Years of Service: 9
Age: 62
About

 

Mr. Paz served as Chairman of the Board Committees:

Corporate Governance & Responsibility

Audit Committee Chairperson

 of Express Scripts Holding Company (Express Scripts), a pharmacy benefit management company, from May 2006 to its acquisition by Cigna in December 2018, as Chief Executive Officer from April 2005 to May 2016, and as President from October 2003 to February 2014. He first became a director of Express Scripts in January 2004. Mr. Paz joined Express Scripts as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer in January 1998 and continued to serve as its Chief Financial Officer following his election as President until April 2004. Mr. Paz is a Certified Public Accountant. He also is a director of Prudential Financial, Inc.

Mr. Paz has served as Chairman of the Board of Express Scripts, a pharmacy benefit management company, since May 2006, as Chief Executive Officer from April 2005 to May 2016 and as President from October 2003 to February 2014. He has served as a director of Express Scripts since January 2004. Mr. Paz joined Express Scripts as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer in January 1998 and continued to serve as its Chief Financial Officer following his election as President until April 2004. Mr. Paz is a Certified Public Accountant. He is also a director of Prudential Financial, Inc.


LOGO

Specific Qualifications Attributes Skills, and Experience

Significant management and finance experience gained through senior leadership positions at Express Scripts

Financial expertise, including in tax, financial reporting, accounting, and controls

Information technology expertise in the healthcare and pharmaceutical industries and a strong track record of developing automated solutions in the healthcare marketplace

Developed technologies for adjudication, compliance, prior authorization, and safety standards in healthcare

Extensive experience in corporate finance, insurance and risk management, mergers and acquisitions, capital markets, government regulation, and employee health benefits

LOGO

ROBIN L.

ROBIN L. WASHINGTON Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Gilead Sciences, Inc. (Gilead)

 

Executive Vice

President and Chief Financial Officer,

Gilead Sciences, Inc.

  

Years of Service: 5
Age: 55
About

 

Board Committees:

Audit

Retirement Plans Chairperson

 Ms. Washington joined Gilead Sciences, Inc. (Gilead), a research-based biopharmaceutical company, as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer in May 2008. In her current role as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, she oversees Gilead’s Global Finance, Investor Relations, and Information Technology organizations. From 2006-2007, Ms. Washington served as Chief Financial Officer of Hyperion Solutions, an enterprise software company that was acquired by Oracle Corporation in March 2007. Prior to that, Ms. Washington spent nearly 10 years at PeopleSoft, a provider of enterprise application software, where she served in a number of executive positions, most recently in the role of Senior Vice President and Corporate Controller. Ms. Washington is a Certified Public Accountant. She is a director of Salesforce.com Inc. and previously served as a director of Tektronix, Inc. (acquired by Danaher Corporation) (2005-2007) and MIPS Technologies, Inc. (acquired by Imagination Technologies Group PLC) (2008-2013).

Ms. Washington joined Gilead, a research-based biopharmaceutical company, as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer in May 2008. In her current role as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, she oversees Gilead’s Global Finance, Investor Relations and Information Technology organizations. From 2006-2007, Ms. Washington served as Chief Financial Officer of Hyperion Solutions, an enterprise software company that was acquired by Oracle Corporation in March 2007. Prior to that, Ms. Washington spent nearly 10 years at PeopleSoft, a provider of enterprise application software, where she served in a number of executive positions, most recently in the role of Senior Vice President and Corporate Controller. Ms. Washington is a Certified Public Accountant. She is a director of Salesforce.com Inc. and previously served as a director of Tektronix, Inc. (acquired by Danaher Corporation) (2005-2007) and MIPS Technologies, Inc. (acquired by Imagination Technologies Group PLC) (2008-2013).


LOGO

Specific Qualifications Attributes Skills, and Experience

Extensive management, operational and accounting experience in the healthcare and information technology industries

Financial expertise, including in tax, financial reporting, accounting and controls, corporate finance, mergers and acquisitions, and capital markets

Broad experience on corporate governance issues gained through public company directorships

LOGO

 


Leadership

Industry

Global

Financial

Government

LOGO


Public Company

Risk Management

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019


Technology

15




Marketing02  |

CORPORATE

GOVERNANCE

 

2018     |     Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners

       |       11

Corporate Governance> Summary of Improvements to our Governance Guidelines in 2017

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

Honeywell is committed to strong corporate governance policies, practices, and procedures designed to make the Board effective in exercising its oversight role. Our Board of Directors oversees management performance on behalf of our shareowners to ensure that the long-term interests of our shareowners are being served, to monitor adherence to Honeywell standards and policies, and to promote the exercise of responsible corporate citizenship. Our Board values and considers the feedback we receive from our shareowners, and we have taken a number of actions over the last several years to increase shareowner rights, enhance the Board’s structure, and augment our commitment to sustainability and corporate responsibility taking into account those perspectives.

The following sections provide an overviewtimeline summarizes the evolution of our corporate governance structure, particularlypractices.

LOGO        

  Created role of independent Lead Director

  Changed our independent auditor after a thorough, competitive vetting process to ensure delivery of value, quality and technology

LOGO

  Proactively adopted proxy access amendment to our By-laws providing that a single shareowner or group of up to 20 shareowners who have held 3% of Honeywell stock for three years may nominate the greater of 20% of the Board or two directors

LOGO

  Significantly increased the responsibilities of the independent Lead Director

  Published a Supplier Code of Conduct, which was incorporated as a mandatory flowdown in our supply contracts; used third-party audits to validate compliance with the Supplier Code of Conduct

  Published a Human Trafficking Policy

  Initiated significant changes to executive compensation plans in response to shareowner preference for longer-term performance awards, better visibility, and less discretion vis-à-vis award determinations, and heavier weighting toward performance-based equity rather than stock options

— Replaced two-year Growth Plan with three-year Performance Plan

— Shifted 80% of annual bonus to formulaic determination

— Shifted weight from stock options to performance stock units

LOGO

  Amended our Corporate Governance Guidelines to improve Board refreshment

  Enhanced the Board’s self-evaluation process

  Further strengthened the role of Lead Director

  Instituted a formal Board skills and experience matrix to facilitate comparison of our director’s skills versus those skills deemed necessary to oversee our current strategy

  Increased Board retirement age to ensure Board continuity through CEO succession and portfolio realignment

  Continued evolution of executive compensation plan with further shift from stock options to performance stock units

LOGO

  Relentless, unambiguous communication that Integrity and Ethics, Supporting Diversity, and Workplace Respect are foundational principles of our performance culture required of every employee globally

  Instituted enterprise-wide mandatory annual certification of compliance with our updated Code of Business Conduct

  Nominated a new director for election to the Board by our shareowners under an enhanced recruitment process

  Inaugural Board skillset matrix included in Proxy Statement

  Reduced ownership threshold to call a special meeting of shareowners from 20% to 15%

LOGO

  Adopted executive approval requirements to increase oversight of trade association memberships

  Instructed trade associations not to use our membership dues for political contributions

  Reduced number of public company boards (including the Honeywell Board) on which any individual director may sit from five to four

  Formalized equivalency of independent Lead Director and independent Chairman roles and responsibilities

16

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019



02  |

CORPORATE

GOVERNANCE

SHAREOWNER OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Understanding the developmentsissues that are important to our shareowners is critical in ensuring that we address their interests in a meaningful and activitieseffective manner. It is also foundational to good corporate governance. In that occurredlight, we engage with our shareowners on a regular basis throughout the year to discuss a range of topics, including our performance, strategy, risk management, executive compensation, and corporate governance. We recognize the value of taking our shareowners’ views into account. Dialogue and engagement with our shareowners help set goals and expectations for our performance, and facilitate identification of emerging issues that may affect our strategies, corporate governance, compensation practices, and other aspects of our operations.

Our shareowner and investor outreach and engagement take many forms. We participate in numerous investor conferences and analyst meetings, hold our own investor events, some of which focus on individual businesses held at our facilities, and meet one-on-one with our shareowners in a variety of contexts and forums. As part of our governance-focused shareowner engagement program, members of our Board, including our Lead Director, participate in many of these meetings to discuss a range of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) matters, including executive compensation, corporate governance, and sustainability. In addition, our Chairman and CEO, Chief Financial Officer, Vice President of Investor Relations, and other senior management engage with our shareowners on a frequent basis, year-round, to discuss Honeywell’s strategy and our financial and business performance and to provide updates on key developments.

Shareowner engagement during 2018 was robust given the implementation of significant portfolio actions that were announced in 2017 and our CFO transition. We held 24 one-on-one meetings with shareowners during the responsibilitiescourse of the Board2018 (representing approximately 29% of outstanding shares) to discuss a wide range of business performance, governance, sustainability and each of its Committees. We also reviewcompensation topics. In addition, our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and other executive officers hosted 56 one-on-one or small group shareowner engagement programmeetings to discuss business performance and feedback received as a result of that engagement.

seek feedback.

SUMMARY OF IMPROVEMENTS TO OUR GOVERNANCE GUIDELINES IN 2017I  GOVERNANCE-FOCUSED SHAREOWNER ENGAGEMENT PROGRAM

 

Honeywell’s Board is committedLOGO

SPRING Our Annual Report and Proxy Statement are distributed to a spirit of “continuous improvement” and is always seeking waysour shareowners. We then extend invitations to improve the efficacy of its governance policies, practices and procedures. During 2017,our largest shareowners to discuss matters to be voted on at our upcoming Annual Meeting. SUMMER Management reports to the Board made improvements to several aspects of Directors on the just-ended proxy season, including a discussion on the voting results and shareowner feedback. This discussion sets the agenda for our Summer/Fall shareowner engagement. ANNUAL SHAREOWNER ENGAGEMENT WINTER The Board implements governance changes, if appropriate, based on its Corporate Governance Guidelines (“Guidelines”) to ensure that its practices remained contemporary and aligned with the needs of Honeywell’s shareowners. These improvements were driven, in significant part, by the CEO succession plan that the Board implemented in 2017 as well as the portfolio reviewindependent judgment and the resulting refocusSummer/Fall shareowner feedback. SUMMER/FALL Management determines topics for upcoming shareowner discussions based on its review of new governance trends, regulatory developments, and the results of the commercial strategy announcedrecently concluded Annual Meeting of Shareowners. Management begins shareowner engagement with our largest shareowners. 54 shareowners received invitations to participate in one-on-one dialogue focused on ESG matters, representing 50% of our outstanding shares 24 one-on-one meetings with shareowners to discuss ESG matters, representing 29% of our outstanding shares 12 one-on-one shareowner meetings hosted by our CEO, Darius Adamczyk, in October 2017.independent Lead Director or an executive ofcer to discuss ESG matters, representing 24% of our outstanding shares

 

The revisions to the Guidelines described in detail below sought to balance two things:

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019

17



02  |

CORPORATE

GOVERNANCE

 

The need

I  YEAR-ROUND SHAREOWNER ENGAGEMENT

 One-on-one shareowner meetings

 Shareowner meetings at industry conferences

 Roadshows in key regions to ensure thatmeet face-to-face with shareowners

I  2018 SHAREOWNER ENGAGEMENT FOCUS AREAS

In 2018, our conversations with shareowners focused on the skills, experiencefollowing key areas:

  Board oversight of long-term strategy

  Performance in our four strategic business groups, key end market trends, overview of our competitive landscape, and potential impacts to our businesses from changes in the regulatory environment

  Updates on the two spin transactions and the process by which Honeywell reached the decision to spin the Transportation Systems business (now Garrett Motion Inc. or Garrett) and the Homes and ADI global distribution businesses (now Resideo Technologies, Inc. or Resideo)

  Introduction to our incoming CFO, Gregory P. Lewis, when executing the CFO transition

  Board refreshment from a diversity and risk perspective

  Recombination of the Board,Chairman and the Board’s abilityCEO role

  A recap of executive compensation program changes that were implemented in 2017 and 2018

  Overview of capital deployment strategy following 2018 spins

  An overview of our environmental and social policies and initiatives, such as our Inclusion and Diversity, Sustainability, Worker Safety, and New Uses of Legacy Properties programs

39

one-on-one or small-
group shareowner
meetingshosted by
our Chairman and
CEO
to periodically refresh those attributes, keep pace with an evolving commercial strategy focused on Honeywell becoming a world-leading software-industrial company. The Board desired to improve how it went about self-evaluationdiscuss
business
performance and refreshment, in both cases to ensure that the collective skills and perspective of the Board continued to evolve alongside Honeywell’s commercial strategy.seek
feedback, attended by
105 shareowners

  
 Continuity and stability in the near term to oversee a successful CEO succession process that the current Board architected and “owns,” being particularly mindful of the importance of stability in the midst of a CEO succession process. The Board views a successful CEO succession as its number one priority. The Board was particularly cognizant that, absent a change in the mandatory retirement age, nearly a third of the Board would have departed in April 2018.

Board Composition Annual Self-Evaluation Process17

one-on-one or small-
group shareowner
meetingshosted by
our CFO or other
executive officers
to
discuss business
performance and seek
feedback, attended by
140 shareowners

I  SHAREOWNER FEEDBACK

Again this year, our shareowners welcomed our level of outreach and expressed appreciation for our engagement and our responsiveness to shareowner concerns. Below is a summary of the feedback we received:

Positive feedback on our 2018 financial performance, especially with regard to organic sales growth in Aerospace, defense and warehouse automation, our achievement of 100% adjusted free cash flow conversion, and our successful Intelligrated (SPS) integration and execution

Appreciation for the level of transparency and the speed with which we executed the Garrett and Resideo spins

Positive feedback regarding the changes to our executive compensation program, especially with regard to how the program has evolved in response to shareowner feedback – in 2018, approximately 92% of our shareowners voted in favor of “Say on Pay”

Continued interest in the recombination of the Chairman and CEO roles and in the Lead Director’s expanded responsibilities to strengthen the position as a counterbalance to the combined Chairman and CEO position

Increased interest in the beneficial dynamics resulting from the diversity of personal background, skills, and experiences of Honeywell’s directors

Emphasis on importance of maintaining alignment of director skillsets with Company strategy

The revised Guidelines now contain a clear vision statement for the composition of Honeywell’s Board:

“The composition of Honeywell’s Board, as well as the perspective and skills of its individual members, needs to effectively support Honeywell’s growth and commercial strategy. Collectively, the Board must also be capable of overseeing risk management, capital allocation and leadership succession. Board composition and the members’ perspective and skills should evolve at an appropriate pace to meet the challenges of Honeywell’s changing commercial and strategic goals.”

Annual Assessment on Whether to Renominate Incumbents

The Corporate Governance and Responsibility Committee (“CGRC”) will evaluate annually whether incumbent Board members’ skills and perspectives meet Honeywell’s needs, both individually and collectively, before recommending re-nomination to the Honeywell Board.

Recruitment of New Members

Clear, transparent processes related to selection and recruitment of new Board members:

•   The Lead Director is now formally charged with responsibility for new director recruitment.

•   A process for formally identifying and prioritizing the skill sets needed in new members by the Chair of the CGRC, Chairman, CEO and Lead Director.

•   An emphasis on finding new members who demonstrate the right leadership traits, personality, work ethic, independence, business experience and diversity of background.18

 

Improvements to our Board’s self-evaluation process to ensure the process facilitates and enables adequate Board refreshment and an appropriate evolution of Board skills, experience and perspectives:

LOGO

 

•   The Lead Director is now jointly responsible for leading the self-evaluation process (together with the Chair of the CGRC).

•   Changes to the self-evaluation questionnaire to elicit better feedback on whether Board skills are matched to Honeywell’s commercial and strategic needs and its risk profile.

Continuity of best practices:

•   The results of director surveys and questionnaires are shared verbatim on an anonymous basis with the entire Board.

•   The results of the self-evaluation are discussed by the full Board in executive session.

 

Increase in Mandatory Retirement Age|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019

 

The mandatory retirement age for Board members was increased from 72 to 75.

•   Absent this increase in retirement age, up to four Board members could have departed at the 2018 Annual Meeting of Shareowners.

•   The increase in mandatory retirement age avoids potential disruption and facilitates governance stability during the current CEO succession while the Board is recruiting new members.

 



1202  |       |        Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners     |     2018

CORPORATE

GOVERNANCE

Corporate Governance> Board Leadership Structure

 

BOARD LEADERSHIP STRUCTURE

I  CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD

David M. Cote, our currentOur CEO, Darius Adamczyk, became the Chairman and former CEO, will retire fromof the Honeywell Board in April at the 2018 Annual Meeting of Shareowners. After careful consideration, Honeywell’s BoardShareowners following the retirement of Directors determined that it is in the best long-term interests of shareownersour former Chairman, David M. Cote. The decision to appoint CEO Darius E.Mr. Adamczyk as Chairman after Mr. Cote’s retirement. Theand recombine the Chairman and CEO roles followed careful consideration by the Board fully understandsand extensive engagement with our shareowners. Understanding the importance of this Board leadership decision to the Company and its shareowners, and hasthe Board thoroughly explored the benefits and challenges of having Mr. Adamczyk serve as both Chairman and CEOthis appointment through an open-minded and unbiased decision-making process.

In reaching its decision the Board considered a wide range of factors more fully described onpages 85-86 where we respond in detail to a shareowner proposal on the need for an independent board chairman. The key factors influencing the Board’s decision to combine the roles of Chairman and CEO under Mr. Adamczyk are as follows:

The benefits of a unified leadership structure during a period when Honeywell is in the process of both a major portfolio realignment, including the spin-off of two significant business units, and strategic shift designed to focus resources and management’s attention on high-growth businesses in six attractive industrial end-markets where we can deploy our core technological strengths related to software, data analytics and the industrial internet of things.
An evaluation of the strength of Mr. Adamczyk’s character, the quality of his leadership, and the likelihood that Mr. Adamczyk’s service as both Chairman and CEO will enhance Company performance. The Board does not believe that an independent Chairman will enhance Company performance or improve governance effectiveness under Mr. Adamczyk’s leadership.
Our longstanding track record of outperformance under a unified leadership structure in which the roles of Chairman and CEO were combined.
The highly independent nature of our Board where, following Mr. Adamczyk’s appointment to Chairman, there will only be one non-independent director.
Steps taken by Honeywell’s Board to strengthen the role of Lead Director and demonstrated ability of the Lead Director to effectively lead the Board, particularly with respect to the CEO succession process and comprehensive portfolio review, the results of which were announced in October 2017.

As part of its deliberations, the Board carefully weighed the views of its shareowners. Our Lead Director, Mr. Jaime Chico Pardo, and the Chair of the Corporate Governance and Responsibility Committee, Ms. Linnet Deily, extended meeting invitations to 14 of our largest shareowners, representing approximately 32.29% of the shares entitled to vote at our Annual Meeting of Shareowners, for one-on-one meetings to discuss, among other things, the decision on whether to recombine the roles of Chairman and CEO under Mr. Adamczyk. During thoseAdamczyk, the Board considered a wide range of factors as follows:

The benefits of a unified leadership structure during a period when Honeywell is in the process of a major portfolio realignment and a strategic shift designed to focus resources and management’s attention on high-growth businesses in six attractive industrial end markets where we can deploy our core technological strengths related to software, data analytics, and the industrial internet of things

An evaluation of the strength of Mr. Adamczyk’s character, the quality of his leadership, and the likelihood that Mr. Adamczyk’s service as both Chairman and CEO would enhance Company performance – the Board continues to believe that an independent Chairman would not enhance Company performance or improve governance effectiveness under Mr. Adamczyk’s leadership

Our longstanding track record of outperformance under a unified leadership structure in which the roles of Chairman and CEO were combined

The highly independent nature of our Board where there is only one non-independent director

Steps taken by Honeywell’s Board to strengthen the role of the independent Lead Director and the demonstrated ability of our Lead Director to effectively lead the Board

The Board carefully weighed the views of its shareowners as part of its deliberations leading up to our 2018 Annual Meeting of Shareowners and continued to engage with shareowners on this topic during the summer/fall shareowner engagement meetings wethereafter. We heard a range of views. Mostviews during those meetings, with most of our shareowners hadexpressing confidence that the Honeywell Board understands the importance of good corporate governance and has demonstrated the ability to make the right decision regarding its ongoing leadership structure, specifically the determination of whether and when to separate and combine the roles of Chairman and CEO. We more fully describe our robust shareowner engagement program onpages 4-5.

Lead DirectorI  INDEPENDENT LEAD DIRECTOR

Honeywell’s independent Lead Director plays an important role in our governance structure, serving as the de facto leader of the independent directors, and the single focal point charged with ensuring that the Board as a whole is providing appropriate independent oversight of management.management, and anex officio member of each Board committee on which he or she does not otherwise serve. Over the past several years, the Board has continually soughttaken action to strengthen the role of Lead Director, including inamendments to our most recent amendment to the Corporate Governance Guidelines when we formalizedto formalize the role of the Lead Director in the recruitment and selection of new Board members and in the annual self-evaluation process.

The roles and responsibilities of the Lead Director are described in our Corporate Governance Guidelines, which the Board further amended to formalize the equivalency of independent Lead Director and independent Chairman roles and responsibilities. The guidelines now explicitly acknowledge that, in the absence of an independent Chairman, the Lead Director would assume the same roles and responsibilities. These roles and responsibilities include the following:

As and when the Board considers adding new members, work with the CEO, the CGRC and the full Board to help identify and prioritize the specific skill sets, experience, and knowledge that candidates for election to the Board must possess

Review, and when appropriate, make changes to Board meeting agendas and Board meeting schedules to ensure there is sufficient time for discussion of all agenda items

Review, and when appropriate, make changes to presentation material and other written information provided to directors for Board meetings

Preside at all meetings at which the Chairman is not present, including executive sessions of the independent directors, and apprise the Chairman of the issues considered

Serve as liaison between the Chairman and the independent directors

Be available for consultation and direct communication with the Company’s shareowners

Call meetings of the independent directors when necessary and appropriate

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019

19



02  |

CORPORATE

GOVERNANCE

Retain outside professionals on behalf of the Board

Consult with management about what information is to be sent to the Board

Identify key strategic direction and operational issues upon which the Board’s annual core agenda is based

Serve as anex officiomember of each committee on which he does not otherwise serve

The Lead Director is selected biennially by Honeywell’s independent directors. Mr. Jaime Chico Pardo’s first two-year term will expire at the 2018 Annual Meeting of Shareowners. The Board has unanimously decided to re-elect Mr. Chico Pardo for a second two-year term. Before re-electing Mr. Chico Pardo, the Board carefully considereddirectors, taking into account the Lead Director Selection Criteria memorialized in our Corporate Governance Guidelines. Below, we summarize thoseThese criteria include:

Qualifies as independent, in accordance with relevant listing standards

Ability to commit the time and level of engagement required to fulfill the substantial responsibilities of the role

Effective communication skills to facilitate discussions among Board members, including between the independent directors and the waysChairman and CEO, and to engage with shareowners and other key stakeholders

Strong rapport with other members of the Board

High personal integrity and ethical character

Skills and experience broadly in line with Honeywell’s corporate strategy, including, as relevant, leadership experience within a large, complex organization, international experience, exposure to a variety of markets, and expertise aligned with key growth initiatives

Our current Lead Director, Mr. Jaime Chico Pardo, was re-elected by our independent directors in 2017 to serve a second two-year term which will expire in 2020. In addition to satisfying each of the criteria listed above, Mr. Chico Pardo has worked tirelessly on behalf of Honeywell including assisting Honeywell in its efforts to increase organic sales growth in Mexico and across Latin America, meeting with shareowners, and participating in various external governance and lead director programs to stay current on best practices and investor concerns. Mr. Chico Pardo is extremely well regarded by his fellow Board members for, among other things, his encyclopedic knowledge of Honeywell, listening and communication skills, excellent judgment, and ability to build consensus for informed decision making.

DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE

Our Corporate Governance Guidelines state that the, “Board intends that, at all times, a substantial majority of its directors will be considered independent under relevant NYSE and SEC guidelines.”

I  AFFIRMATIVE DETERMINATION OF INDEPENDENCE

To fulfill this intent, the Board regularly reviews the independence of each non-employee director to make an affirmative determination of independence. Specifically, the CGRC conducts an annual review of the independence of the directors and reports its findings to the full Board. This year, based on the report and recommendation of the CGRC, the Board has determined that each of the non-employee nominees standing for election to the Board at the Annual Meeting—Messrs. Angove, Ayer, Burke, Chico Pardo, Davis, Gregg, Hollick, and Paz and Mses. Deily, Lieblein, and Washington—satisfies the independence criteria in the applicable NYSE listing standards and SEC rules (including, where applicable, the enhanced criteria with respect to members of the Audit Committee and the MDCC). Each Board committee member qualifies as a non-employee director within the meaning of Rule 16b-3 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act).

I  CRITERIA FOR DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE

For a director to be considered independent, the Board must determine that the director does not have any material relationships with Honeywell, either directly as a partner, shareowner, or officer of an organization that has a relationship with Honeywell, other than as a director and shareowner. Material relationships can include vendor, supplier, consulting, legal, banking, accounting, charitable, and family relationships, among others. The Board considered all relevant facts and circumstances in making its determinations, including the following:

No non-employee director or nominee receives any direct compensation from Honeywell other than under the director compensation program described in this Proxy Statement.

No immediate family member (within the meaning of the NYSE listing standards) of any non-employee director or nominee receives direct compensation from Honeywell other than compensation received for service as a non-executive employee.

No non-employee director or nominee is affiliated with Honeywell or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates.

No non-employee director or nominee is an employee of Honeywell’s independent accountants and no non-employee director or nominee (or any of their respective immediate family members) is a current partner of Honeywell’s independent accountants, or was within the last three years, a partner or employee of Honeywell’s independent accountants and personally worked on Honeywell’s audit.

20

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019



02  |

CORPORATE

GOVERNANCE

No non-employee director or nominee is a member, partner, or principal of any law firm, accounting firm, or investment banking firm that receives any consulting, advisory, or other fees from Honeywell.

No Honeywell executive officer is on the compensation committee of the board of directors of a company that employs any of our non-employee directors or nominees (or any of their respective immediate family members) as an executive officer.

No non-employee director or nominee (or any of their respective immediate family members) is indebted to Honeywell, nor is Honeywell indebted to any non-employee director or nominee (or any of their respective immediate family members).

No non-employee director or nominee is an executive officer of a charitable or other tax-exempt organization that received contributions from Honeywell.

Honeywell has commercial relationships (purchase and/or sale of products and services) with companies at which our directors serve or have served as officers within the past three years (Mr. Angove—Infor, Ms. Lieblein—General Motors, Mr. Paz—Express Scripts, and Ms. Washington—Gilead Sciences). In each case:

    —

The relevant products and services were provided on terms and conditions determined on an arm’s-length basis and consistent with those provided by or to similarly situated customers and suppliers;

    —

The relevant director did not initiate or negotiate the relevant transaction, each of which was in the ordinary course of business of both companies; and

    —

The combined amount of such purchases and sales was less than 0.05% of the consolidated gross revenue of each of Honeywell and the other company in each of the last three completed fiscal years. This level is significantly below the requirements of the NYSE listing standards for director independence, which uses a 2% of consolidated gross revenue threshold and applies it to each of purchases and sales rather than the combination of the two.

While a non-employee director’s or nominee’s service as an outside director of another company with which Honeywell does business would generally not be expected to raise independence issues, the Board also considered those criteria.relationships and confirmed the absence of any material commercial relationships with any such company. Specifically, those commercial relationships were in the ordinary course of business for Honeywell and the other companies involved and were on terms and conditions available to similarly situated customers and suppliers.

The above information was derived from Honeywell’s books and records and responses to questionnaires completed by the director nominees in connection with the preparation of this Proxy Statement.

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019

21



02  |

CORPORATE

GOVERNANCE

BOARD’S ROLE IN RISK OVERSIGHT

While senior management has primary responsibility for managing risk, the Board as a whole has responsibility for risk oversight with specific risk areas delegated to relevant Board committees who report on their deliberations to the Board. The specific risk areas of focus for the Board and each of its committees are summarized below.

 

2018     |     Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners       |       13

Corporate Governance> Governance Best Practices

Lead Director Selection CriteriaHow Mr. Chico Pardo Satisfies Our Criteria
    
   Able to commit the time and level of engagement required to fulfill the substantial responsibilities of the role.   Mr. Chico Pardo has worked tirelessly on behalf of Honeywell including assisting Honeywell in its efforts to increase organic sales growth in Mexico and across Latin America, meeting with shareowners, often in person, and participating in various external governance and lead director programs to stay current on best practices and investor concerns.
   Effective communication skills to facilitate discussions among Board members, including between the non-management directors and the CEO/Chairman, and engage with key stakeholders.   Mr. Chico Pardo spends significant time soliciting the views of Board members on sensitive issues and sharing those views with Mr. Adamczyk and other Board members. Mr. Chico Pardo also proved himself to be an effective communicator in his numerous meetings with shareowners, both with respect to the significant changes made to our executive compensation programs in 2016 and governance changes in 2017.
   Strong rapport with other members of the Board.   Mr. Chico Pardo is extremely well regarded by his fellow Board members for, among other things, his encyclopedic knowledge of Honeywell, listening and communication skills, excellent judgment and ability to build consensus for informed decision making.
   High personal integrity and ethical character.   Mr. Chico Pardo has demonstrated a track record of conducting himself with the highest ethical standards, both in his long business career and as a Honeywell Board member.

   Skills and experience broadly in line with Honeywell’s corporate strategy, including, as relevant:

   Leadership experience within a large, complex organization;

   International experience and exposure to a variety of markets; and

   Expertise aligned with key growth initiatives.

   Qualifies as independent, in accordance with the Company’s By-laws and relevant listing standards.Board/Committee

 

   Mr. Chico Pardo’s skills and experience are well suited for his service as Honeywell’s Lead Director. He has led large, complex business enterprises in a wide rangePrimary Areas of industries that are complementary to Honeywell’s businesses and its customers. His business and leadership activities have been truly global including managing significant business activities in North and Latin America.Risk Oversight

   Mr. Chico Pardo is independent in accordance with our By-laws and NYSE listing standards and, more importantly, with respect to his willingness to constructively challenge management with alternative perspectives and opinions.

GOVERNANCE BEST PRACTICES

Board Practices and Procedures

The Board’s Committees—Audit, Corporate Governance and Responsibility, Management Development and Compensation, and Retirement Plans—undertake extensive analysis and review of the Company’s activities in key areas such as financial reporting, risk management, internal controls, compliance, corporate governance, succession planning and executive compensation.
The Board and its Committees perform an annual review of the agenda and topics to be considered for each meeting. During that review, each Board and Committee member is free to raise topics that are not on the agenda at any meeting and to suggest items for inclusion on future agendas.

14       |        Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners     |     2018

Corporate Governance> Governance Best Practices

Each director is provided in advance written material to be considered at every meeting of the Board and has the opportunity to provide comments and suggestions.
The Board and its Committees provide feedback to management, and management is required to answer questions raised by the directors during Board and Committee meetings.
Each of the Lead Director and the Chair of the Corporate Governance and Responsibility Committee is permanently empowered and authorized to call special meetings of the Board at any time and for any reason.

Honeywell’s Code of Business Conduct applies to all directors, officers (including the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Controller) and employees. Amendments to or waivers of the Code of Business Conduct granted to any of Honeywell’s directors and executive officers will be published on our website.

Governance Highlights

Our Board of Directors oversees management performance on behalf of the shareowners to ensure that the long-term interests of the shareowners are being served, to monitor adherence to Honeywell standards and policies, and to promote the exercise of responsible corporate citizenship.

2017 Corporate Governance Actions

Changed our Corporate Governance Guidelines to improve Board refreshment
    
Improved the Board’s self-evaluation process

Full Board

  

  Oversee the Company’s risk governance framework, including an enterprise-wide culture that supports appropriate risk awareness and the identification, escalation, and appropriate management of risk

  Integrity, ethics, and compliance with our Code of Business Conduct

  General strategic and commercial risks such as new product launch, capital spend, raw material price increases, foreign currency fluctuation, diminished customer demand, technology obsolescence, reductions to government spending, and a slowdown in economic growth

  Disruption, including disruptive technologies, emerging competition, and changing business models

  M&A integration and the M&A competitive landscape

  Legal risks such as those arising from litigation and intellectual property matters

Strengthened role of Lead Director

Audit Committee

  

  Oversee the Company’s Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) and Crisis Incident Management programs

  Cybersecurity, including protection of customer and employee data, trade secrets, and other proprietary “crown jewel” information, ensuring the security of data on the cloud, persistent threats, and cyber risks associated with our own software products

  Accounting, controls, and financial disclosure

  Tax and liquidity management

  Product integrity and product security

  Vendor risk, including supply chain disruption

  Operational business continuity, including catastrophic risks such as natural disasters and plant accidents

Instituted a formal Board skills and experience matrix
Increased Board retirement age to ensure Board continuity through CEO succession and portfolio realignment
Nominated a new director for election to the Board by the shareowners under improved recruitment process
Recombined Chair and CEO roles (2018 action)
Proposed reduction to the ownership threshold to call a special meeting of shareowners from 20% to 15% at 2018 Annual Meeting

All director nominees are independent, other than the CEO.
An Independent Lead Director whose role has continually been expanded and strengthened.
A diverse Board of our independent directors, 27% are women, 27% are Hispanic, 9% are African American and 18% are non-U.S. citizens, as of the 2018 Annual Meeting of Shareowners.
Strong commitment to corporate social responsibility and sustainability.
Robust year-round shareowner engagement, including frequent discussions between larger shareowners and directors.
Risk oversight by full Board and Committees, including strengthened cybersecurity oversight by the Audit Committee and full Board.
All Board Committees are independent.
Annual election of directors.
Majority voting in uncontested elections.
Adopted proxy access By-law amendment.
Chair of the Corporate Governance and Responsibility Committee (CGRC)

  Political contributions and lobbying

  Regulatory compliance, such as data privacy, sanctions and export compliance, government contracts compliance, and counterfeit parts

  Integrity and compliance programs and policies

  Geopolitical risk, including political, economic or Lead Director can call special meetings of the Board at any time for any reason.military conflicts and tariffs

  Health, safety, environmental, product stewardship, and sustainability

Management Development and Compensation Committee (MDCC)

  

Three Audit Committee members are designated “audit committee financial experts.”  Succession planning

  Compensation plans, programs, and arrangements and other employment practices and policies

  Recruitment and retention of key talent

  Labor compliance and progress in implementing our diversity goals and objectives

  Workplace respect and culture

  Workplace violence

Retirement Plans Committee

  

Simple majority vote requirements to amend charter  Funding of our employee pension and approve mergers and acquisitions.
No poison pill in place; Board will seek shareowner approval if a shareowner rights plan is adopted.
Regular executive sessions of independent directors.
No use of corporate funds for political contributions and careful oversight of political lobbying activities.saving plans

I  ENTERPRISE RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

The Board uses the ERM program as a key tool for understanding the inherent risks facing Honeywell as well as assessing whether management’s processes, procedures, and practices for mitigating those risks are effective. The ERM assessment deployed by management is robust, based on both an enterprise-wide “top down” and “bottom up” view of commercial, strategic, legal, compliance, cyber, and reputational risks and strategies for mitigating those risks. In 2018, the ERM program included interviews with each director, each executive officer, and 57 risk owners across all businesses and functions.

 

2018

22

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of ShareownersStatement  |  2019

       |       15



02  |

CORPORATE

GOVERNANCE

Corporate Governance> Where Shareowners Can Find More Information

 

Both the Audit Committee and the full Board review the results of the annual ERM assessment. During the reviews, Honeywell’s CFO and General Counsel jointly present the results of the ERM assessment in a manner designed to provide full visibility into the risks facing Honeywell and how management is mitigating those risks, thereby enabling the Board to effectively exercise its oversight function. To facilitate continued monitoring and oversight by the Board, key risk areas identified during the ERM process and management’s associated mitigation activities become part of Board and/or committee meeting agendas for the following year.

Every three years, the ERM process includes one-on-one meetings with each Board member to discuss each director’s “top down” view of risks facing the enterprise, to solicit the director’s recommendations for improving the ERM process, and to ensure that the universe of risks and the metrics for identifying key risks, in terms of likelihood of occurrence and potential financial impact, is both realistic and appropriate. Feedback from the one-on-one interviews with the individual Board members is presented to the full Board and incorporated in our ERM program and risk mitigation efforts.

I  OVERSIGHT OF STRATEGY

One of the Board’s primary responsibilities is overseeing management’s establishment and execution of the Company’s strategy and the associated risks. The full Board oversees strategy and strategic risk through robust and constructive engagement with management, taking into consideration our key priorities, global trends impacting our business, regulatory developments, and disruptors in our industries. The Board’s oversight of our strategy primarily occurs through deep-dive annual reviews of the long-term strategic plans and annual operating plans of each of our businesses. During these reviews, management provides the Board with its view of the key commercial and strategic risks faced by each business unit, and the Board provides management with robust feedback on whether management has identified the key risks and is taking appropriate actions to mitigate risk. In addition to the review of each business’ strategic and annual plans, specific areas of risk and opportunity are tabled for further Board and/or committee discussion as specific risks arise or as requested by management or individual Board members to ensure additional Board engagement on the areas of risk that are most impactful to Honeywell’s strategic direction.

The Board’s oversight of strategy was prominent during the portfolio review process that ultimately led to the Garrett and Resideo spins. With the ultimate goal of achieving an outcome that would promote long-term shareowner value, the Board engaged in a rigorous, thorough, and unbiased review of our portfolio, devoting a substantial amount of time and resources to reviewing and pressure testing the financial and strategic analyses prepared by management and external advisors. The Board then monitored management’s execution of the spin transactions to ensure world-class execution.

I  OVERSIGHT OF HUMAN CAPITAL AND CULTURE

The Board and the MDCC provide oversight over human capital, with particular focus on culture, talent development and assessment as well as succession planning. Honeywell fosters a performance culture where all directors, officers, and employees are expected to uphold our foundational principles of Integrity and Ethics, Supporting Diversity, and Workplace Respect, and build meaningful careers based on our 8 Behaviors: Have a Passion for Winning, Be A Zealot for Growth, Think Big … Then Make It Happen, Act With Urgency, Be Courageous, Go Beyond, Inspire Greatness, and Become Your Best. The strength of our culture is essential to fulfilling our strategic vision, and the Board and the MDCC work with management to monitor compliance with the foundational principles and measure progress against the 8 Behaviors.

The Board also is closely engaged in the development and management of human capital. The Board’s involvement in leadership development and succession planning is systematic and ongoing, and the Board provides input on important decisions in each of these areas. The Board has primary responsibility for succession planning for the CEO and oversight over succession planning for other executive officer positions. The MDCC oversees the development of the process and protocols regarding succession plans for our executive officers, and annually reviews and updates these protocols to reflect input from Board members. To assist the Board, the CEO annually provides an assessment of senior managers and their potential to succeed to the position of CEO. In addition, the Board meets regularly with high-potential executives, both in small group and one-on-one settings.

WHERE SHAREOWNERS CAN FIND MORE INFORMATIONBOARD PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES

I  BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS

 

KEY CORPORATE GOVERNANCE DOCUMENTS

Please visit our website atwww.honeywell.com (see “Investors/Corporate Governance”)Agenda.The Board and its committees perform an annual review of the agenda items to viewbe considered for each meeting. During that review, each Board and committee member is free to raise topics that are not on the following documents:agenda at any meeting and to suggest items for inclusion on future agendas.

Corporate Governance Guidelines
Code of Business Conduct
Board Committees and Charters
Charter and By-laws of Honeywell

 

These documents are available freeNumber of charge on our website or by writing to Honeywell, 115 Tabor Road, Morris Plains, New Jersey 07950, c/o Corporate Secretary.

BOARD MEETINGSMeetings and Attendance.

TheIn 2018, the Board of Directors held seven meetings during 2017.and the committees of the Board collectively held 24 meetings. The Board had 100% meeting attendance, and the directors’ average attendance rate at meetings of the Board and Board Committees during 2017committees on which they have been appointed was 97%98%. During this period, allEach of the directors attended or participated in at least 75% of the aggregate of the total number of Board meetings ofheld during the Board of Directorsperiod for which he or she was a director, and the total number of meetings held by all CommitteesBoard committees on which he or she served (during the period that he or she served).

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019

23



02  |

CORPORATE

GOVERNANCE

Special Meetings.The Chairman, the Lead Director, the Chair of the Corporate Governance and Responsibility Committee, and at the request of two independent directors, the Corporate Secretary, are permanently empowered and authorized to call special meetings of the Board at any time and for any reason.

Board Meeting Materials.Each director is provided in advance with written material to be considered at every meeting of Directorsthe Board and of the committees on which each such director served.he or she is a member and has the opportunity to provide comments and suggestions.

I   SELF-EVALUATION

 

Objective.The Board and each of its committees conduct a comprehensive evaluation of their effectiveness throughout the year. Committee members have the opportunity to provide input directly to the Lead Director, committee chairs, or to management. A more formal self-evaluation is launched in January of each year and the feedback gleaned from the evaluation is utilized to facilitate and enable adequate Board refreshment and an appropriate evolution of Board skills, experiences, and perspectives specifically with a view toward eliciting feedback on whether our directors’ skills are matched to Honeywell’s strategic needs and its risk profile.

Process.The Lead Director, together with the Chair of the CGRC, are jointly responsible for leading the self-evaluation process – a process that includes the development and approval of the evaluation by the CGRC, its administration through a third party, summarization of the results, and its report out to the full Board on an anonymous basis.

LOGO

I   OTHER BEST PRACTICE BOARD PROCEDURES

Annual Shareowner Meeting Attendance.Our Corporate Governance Guidelines encourage all directors to attend our Annual Meeting of Shareowners. Generally, Board and committee meetings are held immediately preceding and following the Annual Meeting, with directors attending the Annual Meeting. All of our directors attended last year’s Annual Meeting.

Engagement with Management.The Board and its committees provide feedback to management, and management is required to answer questions raised by the directors during Board and committee meetings. Our senior management meets regularly with the Board, including yearly reviews of each business’ long-term strategic plan and annual operating plan.

Director Education.Our Board believes that director education is vital to the ability of directors to fulfill their roles and supports Board members in their continuous learning. Directors may enroll in continuing education programs at Honeywell’s expense on corporate governance and critical issues associated with a director’s service on a public company board. Our Board also hears regularly from management on numerous subjects, including investor sentiments, shareowner activism, regulatory developments, data privacy, and cybersecurity. In addition, the Board periodically participates in site visits to Honeywell’s facilities. For example, in 2018, Board members visited Honeywell’s new software center in Atlanta, Georgia, and attended its annual Technology Symposium.

Director Orientation.All new directors participate in our director orientation program during the first year on our Board. New directors receive an extensive suite of onboarding materials covering director responsibilities, corporate governance practices and policies, business strategies, leadership structure, and long-term plans. They then participate in a series of meetings over time with management representatives from all of our businesses and functional areas to review and discuss information about Honeywell’s strategic plans, financial statements, and key issues, policies, and practices. Based on feedback from our directors, we believe this graduated onboarding approach over the first year of Board service, coupled with participation in regular Board and committee meetings, provides new directors with a strong foundation for understanding our businesses, connects directors with members of management with whom they will interact, and accelerates their effectiveness to engage fully in Board deliberations. Directors have access to additional orientation and educational opportunities upon acceptance of new or additional responsibilities on the Board and in committees.

24

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019



02  |

CORPORATE

GOVERNANCE

BOARD COMMITTEES

The Board currently has four committees. All of the following Committees: Audit; Corporate Governance and Responsibility; Management Development and Compensation; and Retirement Plans. Each Committee consists entirelymembers of each committee are independent, non-employee directors. Each Committeecommittee operates under a written charter, which is available on our website atwww.honeywell.com (see “Investors/Corporate Governance/Board Committees”).

Committee Membership

The table below lists the current membership of each Committeecommittee and the number of Committeecommittee meetings held in 2017.2018.

 

            
NameAuditCorporate Governance
and Responsibility
Management Development
and Compensation
Retirement Plans  Audit  

Corporate Governance and
Responsibility

 

  

Management Development
and Compensation

 

  Retirement Plans
            
Mr. Angove  XX        

LOGO

 

  

LOGO

 

Mr. Ayer X      

LOGO

 

  

LOGO

 

   
Mr. BurkeX X  

LOGO

 

        

LOGO

 

Mr. Chico Pardo(a)X

Mr. Chico Pardo*

  

ex officio

 

  

LOGO

 

  

ex officio

 

  

LOGO

 

Mr. DavisX Chair   

LOGO

 

     

Chair

 

   
Ms. DeilyXChair   

LOGO

 

  

Chair

 

      
Mr. GreggX   

LOGO

 

  

LOGO

 

      
Mr. Hollick X        

LOGO

 

  

LOGO

 

Ms. Lieblein X      

LOGO

 

  

LOGO

 

   
Mr. PazChairX   

Chair

 

  

LOGO

 

      
Dr. Sheares XChair(b)
Ms. WashingtonX X  

LOGO

 

        

Chair

 

2017 Meetings963

2018 Meetings

  

11

 

  

4

 

  

6

 

  

3

 

(a)Lead Director and ex officio * Lead Director is anex officiomember of each Committee.

(b)Upon Dr. Sheares’ retirement from the Board at the 2018 Annual Meeting, Ms. Washington shall become Chair of the Retirement Plans Committee.

16       |        Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners     |     2018

Corporate Governance> Board Committees

Board Committees and Responsibilities

The primary functions of each of the Board Committees are described below.committee on which he does not otherwise serve.

 

Board CommitteesResponsibilities

IAUDIT COMMITTEE

Committee Chair:

  George Paz*

Additional Committee Members:

Kevin Burke
D. Scott Davis*
Linnet Deily
Judd Gregg
Robin Washington*
Jaime Chico Pardo
(ex officio member)

*   Audit Committee Financial Expert

Meetings Held in 2017:9

   All Members Independent

   Has oversight responsibility for our independent accountants

See further detailed information following this chart.

  

  Appoint (subject to shareowner approval), and be directly responsible for the compensation, retention and oversight of, the firm that will serveserves as independent accountants to audit our financial statements and to perform services related to the audit; this includes resolving disagreements between management and the independent accountants regarding financial reporting;

 

  Review the scope and results of the audit with the independent accountants;

 

  Consider the accountants’ independence;

 

  Review with management and the independent accountants, prior to filing, the annual and interim financial results (including Management’s Discussion and Analysis) to be included in Forms 10-K and 10-Q;

 

  Consider the adequacy and effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting and auditing procedures;

 

  Review, approve, and establish procedures for the receipt, retention, and treatment of complaints received by Honeywell regarding accounting, internal control over financial reporting or auditing matters and for the confidential, anonymous submission by employees of concerns regarding questionable accounting or auditing matters;

 

  Review material legal and compliance matters, and the effectiveness of the Company’s integrity and compliance program;program and significant health, safety, or environmental incidents; and

 

  Together with the full Board, exercise oversight over management’s enterprise risk management (“ERM”)(ERM) process and assess whether mitigation strategies for the risks identified through the ERM process are adequate, including for such risks as cybersecurity, import-export compliance, and foreign corrupt practices.

LOGO

LOGO  Audit committee oversight of independent accountants

The Audit Committee seeks to ensure the exercise of appropriate professional skepticism by the independent accountants by reviewing and discussing, among other things, management and auditor reports regarding significant estimates and judgments and the results of peer quality review and Public Company Accounting Oversight Board inspections of the independent accountants. The Audit Committee also reviews and pre-approves all audit and non-audit services provided to Honeywell by the independent accountants in order to determine that such services would not adversely impact auditor independence and objectivity. The Audit Committee also holds separate executive sessions at each in-person meeting with representatives of our independent accountants, and with Honeywell’s Chief Financial Officer and Vice President-Corporate Audit.

LOGO

 

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019

 

25



02  |

CORPORATE

GOVERNANCE

ICORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND

    RESPONSIBILITY COMMITTEE

    

Committee Chair:

  Linnet Deily

Additional Committee Members:

William Ayer
Judd Gregg
Grace Lieblein
George Paz
Jaime Chico Pardo
(ex officio member)

Meetings Held in 2017:6

   All Members Independent

   Also serves as the Nominating Committee(CGRC)

 

  

  Identify and evaluate potential director candidates and recommend to the Board the nominees to be proposed by the Company for election to the Board;

 

  Review and make a recommendation to the Board regarding whether to accept a resignation tendered by a Board nominee who does not receive a majority of votes cast for his or her election in an uncontested election of directors;

 

  Review annually and recommend changes to the Corporate Governance Guidelines;

 

  Together with the Lead Director, lead the Board in its annual review of the performance of the Board and its Committees;committees;

 

  Review policies and make recommendations to the Board concerning the size and composition of the Board, the qualifications and criteria for election to the Board, retirement from the Board, compensation and benefits of non-employee directors, the conduct of business between Honeywell and any person or entity affiliated with a director, and the structure and composition of Board Committees;committees; and

 

  Review Honeywell’s policies and programs relating to health, safety, and environmental matters,matters; sustainability; political contributions and lobbying, equal employment opportunityinclusion and diversity and such other matters, including the Company’s Code of Business Conduct, as may be brought to the attention of the Committeecommittee regarding Honeywell’s role as a responsible corporate citizen.

LOGO

LOGO  Evaluation and Nomination of Director Candidates

Primary responsibility for identifying and evaluating director candidates and for recommending re-nomination of incumbent directors resides with the CGRC, which consists entirely of independent directors under applicable SEC rules and NYSE listing standards. Our independent Lead Director also is formally charged with responsibility for new director recruitment, including the responsibility of working with the Chairman and CEO, CGRC, and the full Board to help identify and prioritize the specific skill sets, experience, and knowledge that director candidates must possess. The CGRC and Lead Director then establish criteria for director nominees based on these inputs.

Nomination of New Candidates.Potential director candidates meeting the criteria established by the CGRC and Lead Director are then identified either by reputation, existing Board members, or shareowners. The CGRC is also authorized, at the expense of Honeywell, to retain search firms to identify potential director candidates, as well as other external advisors, including for purposes of performing background reviews of potential candidates. Search firms retained by the CGRC shall be provided guidance as to the particular experience, skills, or other characteristics that the Board is then seeking. The CGRC may delegate responsibility for day-to-day management and oversight of a search firm engagement to the Chairman of the Board and/or the Senior Vice President, Human Resources, Security and Communications.

 

2018     |     Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners       |       17

Corporate Governance> Board Committees

Board CommitteesResponsibilities
  Candidates are interviewed multiple times by the Chairman and CEO, Lead Director, and other members of the Board to ensure that candidates not only possess the requisites skills and characteristics, but also the personality, leadership traits, work ethic, and independence of thought to effectively contribute as a member of the Board. After this process, the Board nominates the successful candidate for election to the Board at the Annual Meeting of Shareowners. Director candidates are principally identified and evaluated in anticipation of upcoming director elections and other potential or expected Board vacancies. From time to time, the Board fills vacancies in its membership which arise between annual meetings of shareowners using the same process described above.

Re-nomination of Incumbents.To ensure that the Board continues to evolve and be refreshed in a manner that serves the changing business and strategic needs of Honeywell, before recommending for re-nomination a slate of incumbent directors for an additional term, the CGRC also evaluates whether incumbent directors possess the requisite skills and perspective, both individually and collectively. This evaluation is based primarily on the results of the annual review it performs with the Board of the requisite skills and characteristics of Board members, as well as the composition of the Board as a whole, and the results of the Board’s annual self-evaluation.

MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT AND COMPENSATION COMMITTEE (“MDCC”)26

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019



02  |

 

Committee Chair:CORPORATE

GOVERNANCE

  D. Scott Davis

Additional Committee Members:

Duncan Angove
William Ayer
Clive Hollick
Grace Lieblein
Bradley Sheares
Jaime Chico Pardo
(ex officio member)

 

 

Meetings Held in 2017:6I   MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT

    

   All Members Independent

   Administers Honeywell’s executive compensation programAND COMPENSATION COMMITTEE

    (MDCC)

See further detailed information following this chart.

  

  Evaluate and approve executive compensation plans, policies, and programs, including review and approval of executive compensation-related corporate goals and objectives;

 

  Sole authority to retain and terminate a compensation consultant to assist in the evaluation of CEO or senior executive compensation;

 

  Review and approve the individual goals and objectives of the Company’s executive officers;

 

  Evaluate the CEO’s performance relative to established goals and objectives and, together with the other independent directors, determine and approve the CEO’s compensation level;

 

  Review and determine the annual salary and other remuneration (including incentive compensation and equity-based plans) of all other officers;

 

  Review and discuss with management, the Compensation Discussion and Analysis and other executive compensation disclosure included in this proxy statement;Proxy Statement;

 

  Produce the annual Committee Report included in this proxy statement;Proxy Statement;

  Form and delegate authority to subcommittees when appropriate;

 

  Review the management development program, including executive succession plans; and

 

  Review or take such other action as may be required in connection with the bonus, stock, and other benefit plans of Honeywell and its subsidiaries.

Compensation Committee Interlocks And Insider Participation

During fiscal year 2017, all of the members of the MDCC were independent directors, and no member was an employee or former employee of Honeywell. No MDCC member had any relationship requiring disclosure under “Certain Relationships and Related Transactions” onpages 26-27 of this proxy statement. During fiscal year 2017, none of our executive officers served on the compensation committee (or its equivalent) or board of directors of another entity whose executive officer served on the MDCC.

RETIREMENT PLANS COMMITTEE

Committee Chair:

Bradley Sheares
(To be succeeded by Ms. Washington as of April 23, 2018)


Additional Committee Members:

Duncan Angove
Kevin Burke
Clive Hollick
Robin Washington
Jaime Chico Pardo
(ex officio member)

Meetings Held in 2017:3

   All Members Independent

  Appoint the trustees for funds of the employee pension benefit plans of Honeywell and certain subsidiaries;

  Review funding strategies;

   Review investment policy for fund assets; and

  Oversee members of management that direct the investment of pension fund assets.

LOGO

18LOGO  Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation       |        Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners     |     2018

Corporate Governance> Board Committees

Board Committee Oversight of Independent Accountants

The Audit Committee seeks to ensure the exercise of appropriate professional skepticism by the independent accountants by reviewing and discussing, among other things, management and auditor reports regarding significant estimates and judgments and the results of peer quality review and PCAOB inspectionsDuring fiscal year 2018, all of the members of the MDCC were independent accountants. They also reviewdirectors, and pre-approve all auditno member was an employee or former employee of Honeywell. No MDCC member had any relationship requiring disclosure under “Certain Relationships and non-audit services provided to Honeywell by the independent accountants in order to determine that such services would not adversely impact auditor independence and objectivity. The Audit Committee also holds separate executive sessions at each in-person meeting with representativesRelated Transactions” on page 92 of this Proxy Statement. During fiscal year 2018, none of our independent accountants, and with Honeywell’s Chief Financial Officer and Vice President-Corporate Audit. The Board has determined that Messrs. Paz, Burke, and Davis, and Mses. Deily and Washington satisfyexecutive officers served on the “accountingcompensation committee (or its equivalent) or related financial management expertise” requirements set forth inboard of directors of another entity whose executive officer served on the NYSE listing standards, and has designated eachMDCC.

LOGO  Administration of Mr. Paz, Mr. Davis and Ms. Washington as the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) defined “audit committee financial expert.” Seepage 81 for the Audit Committee Report.

Board Committee Retention of the OutsideExecutive Compensation Consultant

The Management Development and Compensation Committee (“MDCC”) has sole authority to retain a compensation consultant to assist the MDCC in the evaluation of director, CEO or senior executive compensation, but only after considering all factors relevant to the consultant’s independence from management. In addition, the MDCC is directly responsible for approving the consultant’s compensation, evaluating its performance, and terminating its engagement. Under the MDCC’s established policy, its consultant cannot provide any other services to Honeywell. Since October 2009, the MDCC has retained Pearl Meyer (“PM”) as its independent compensation consultant.

Program

The MDCC regularly reviewsadministers the services provided by its outside consultants and performs an annual assessmentExecutive Compensation Program, including determination of the independenceelements of itsthe program and their relative weighting, incentive compensation consultant to determine whetherplan targets, and award amounts. When administering the compensation consultant is independent. The MDCC conducted a specific review of its relationship with PM in 2017, and determined that PM is independent in providing Honeywell with executive compensation consulting services and that PM’s work forprogram, the MDCC did not raise any conflicts of interest, consistent with SEC rules and NYSE listing standards.

In making this determination, the MDCC reviewed information provided by PM on the following factors:

Any other services provided to Honeywell by PM;
Fees received by PM from Honeywell as a percentage of PM’s total revenue;
Policies or procedures maintained by PM to prevent a conflict of interest;
Any business or personal relationship between the individual PM consultants assigned to the Honeywell relationship and any MDCC member;
Any business or personal relationship between the individual PM consultants assigned to the Honeywell relationship, or PM itself, and Honeywell’s executive officers; and
Any Honeywell stock owned by PM or the individual PM consultants assigned to the Honeywell relationship.

In particular, the MDCC noted that PM did not provide any services to the Company or its management other than service to the MDCC, and its services were limited to executive compensation consulting. Specifically, it does not provide, directly or indirectly through affiliates, any non-executive compensation services, including, but not limited to, pension consulting or human resources outsourcing. The MDCC will continue to monitor the independence of its compensation consultant on a periodic basis.

PM compiles information and provides advice regarding the components and mix (short-term/long-term; fixed/variable; cash/equity) of the executive compensation programs of Honeywell and its “Compensation Peer Group” (seepages 41-42 of this proxy statement for further detail regarding the Compensation Peer Group) and analyzes the relative performance of Honeywell and the Compensation Peer Group with respect to stock performance and the financial metrics generally used in the programs. PM also provides information regarding emerging trends and best practices in executive compensation. In addition to information compiled by PM, the MDCC also reviews general survey data compiled and published by third parties. Neither the MDCC nor Honeywell has any inputtakes into the scope of or the companies included in these third-party surveys.

While the MDCC reviews information provided by PM regarding compensation paid by the Compensation Peer Group, as well as third-party survey data, as a general indicator of relevant market conditions, the MDCC does not target a specific competitive position relative to the market in making its compensation determination.

PM reports to the MDCC Chair, has direct access to MDCC members, attends MDCC meetings either in person or by telephone, and meets with the MDCC in executive session without management present.

2018     |     Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners       |       19

Corporate Governance> Board’s Role in Risk Oversight

Compensation Input From Senior Management

The MDCC considers inputaccount recommendations from senior management in making determinations regardingwith regard to the overall executive compensation program and the individual compensation of the executive officers.

As part of Honeywell’s annual planning process, the CEO, CFO, and Senior Vice President—President, Human Resources, ProcurementSecurity and Communications develop targets for Honeywell’s incentive compensation programs and present them to the MDCC. These targets are reviewed by the MDCC to ensure alignment with our strategic and annual operating plans, taking into account the targeted year-over-year and multi-year improvements as well as identified opportunities and risks. The CEO recommends base salary adjustments and cash and equity incentive award levels for Honeywell’s other executive officers. These recommendations are based on performance appraisals (including an assessment of the achievement of pre-established financial and non-financial management objectives) together with a review of supplemental performance measures and prior compensation levels relative to performance.

LOGO  Retention of Independent Compensation Consultant

Each year,The MDCC has sole authority to retain a compensation consultant to assist the MDCC in the evaluation of director, CEO, presentsor senior executive compensation, but only after considering all factors relevant to the consultant’s independence from management. In addition, the MDCC is directly responsible for approving the consultant’s compensation, evaluating its performance, and terminating its engagement. Under the MDCC’s established policy, its consultant cannot provide any other services to Honeywell without the MDCC’s approval, as delegated to the MDCC Chair. Since October 2009, the MDCC has retained Pearl Meyer (PM) as its independent compensation consultant.

The MDCC regularly reviews the services provided by its outside consultants and performs an annual assessment of the independence of its compensation consultant to determine whether the compensation consultant is independent. The MDCC conducted a specific review of its relationship with PM in 2019, and determined that PM is independent in providing Honeywell with executive compensation consulting and limited other employee benchmarking services, and that PM’s work for the MDCC did not raise any conflicts of interest, consistent with SEC rules and NYSE listing standards.

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019

27



02  |

CORPORATE

GOVERNANCE

In making this determination, the MDCC reviewed information provided by PM on the following factors:

Any other services provided to Honeywell by PM;

Fees received by PM from Honeywell as a percentage of PM’s total revenue;

Policies or procedures maintained by PM to prevent a conflict of interest;

Any business or personal relationship between the individual PM consultants assigned to the Honeywell relationship and any MDCC member;

Any business or personal relationship between the individual PM consultants assigned to the Honeywell relationship, or PM itself, and Honeywell’s executive officers; and

Any Honeywell stock owned by PM or the individual PM consultants assigned to the Honeywell relationship.

In particular, the MDCC noted that PM did not provide any services to the Company or its management other than service to the MDCC and limited other employee benchmarking services. Unless approved by the full Board his evaluationMDCC Chair, it does not provide, directly or indirectly through affiliates, any non-executive compensation services, including, but not limited to, pension consulting or human resources outsourcing. The MDCC will continue to monitor the independence of each executive officer’s contributionits compensation consultant on a periodic basis.

PM compiles information and performance overprovides advice regarding the past year, strengthscomponents and development needs and actions, and reviews succession plans for eachmix (short-term/long-term; fixed/variable; cash/equity) of the executive officers.

BOARD’S ROLE IN RISK OVERSIGHT

While senior management has primary responsibilitycompensation programs of Honeywell and its Compensation Peer Group (see pages 43-44 of this Proxy Statement for managing risk,further detail regarding the Board as a whole has responsibility for risk oversight. Relevant Board Committees review specific risk areas, as enumerated below,Compensation Peer Group) and report on their deliberationsanalyzes the relative performance of Honeywell and the Compensation Peer Group with respect to the Board. The full Board oversees risk in several ways. Through regular updates onstock performance and the financial metrics generally used in the programs. PM also provides the MDCC with information regarding emerging trends and operating results of Honeywell,best practices in executive compensation, as well as the annual operating and five-year strategic plans of each Strategic Business Group (“SBG”), management provides the Board with its view of the key commercial and strategic risks faced by each business unit. During those presentations, the Board is ablea specialized survey related to provide management with feedback on whether management has identified the key risks and is taking appropriate actions to mitigate risk.executive aircraft operations. In addition managementto information compiled by PM, the MDCC also reviews general survey data compiled and published by third parties. Neither the MDCC nor Honeywell has any input into the scope of or the companies included in these third-party surveys.

While the MDCC reviews information provided by PM regarding compensation paid by the Compensation Peer Group, as well as third-party survey data, as a general indicator of relevant market conditions, the MDCC does not target a specific competitive position relative to the market in making its compensation determination.

PM reports to the BoardMDCC Chair, has direct access to MDCC members, attends MDCC meetings either in person or by telephone, and each Committee periodically on specific, material risks as they arise or as requested by individual Board members.

In addition, the Board uses the Enterprise Risk Management or ERM program as a key tool for understanding the inherent risks facing Honeywell as well as assessing whether management’s processes, procedures and practices for mitigating those risks are effective. Both the Audit Committee and full Board review the results of the annual ERM assessment. Honeywell’s CFO and General Counsel jointly present the results of the ERM assessment and the presentations are designed to provide full visibility into the risks facing Honeywell and how management is mitigating those risks, thereby enabling the Board to effectively exercise its oversight function. The ERM assessment deployed by management is robust, based on both an enterprise-wide “top down” and “bottom up” view of commercial, strategic, legal, compliance, cyber and reputational risks and strategies for mitigating those risks.

In addition, every three years one-on-one meetings are held with each Board member and the CFO, General Counsel, Controller and Vice President, Internal Audit to solicit feedback on Honeywell’s ERM process to ensure that the universe of risks and how management ranks those risks, in terms of likelihood of occurrence and financial impact, is both realistic and appropriate. Feedback from the one-on-one interviewsmeets with the individual Board member is presented to the full Board and incorporated in our ERM program and risk mitigation efforts. In 2018, one-on-one interviews will be scheduled with each Board member.

The specific risk areas of focus for the Board and each of its Committees are summarized below. In addition, the Audit Committee and the MDCC meet in executive session with keywithout management personnel (for example,present.

I  RETIREMENT PLANS COMMITTEE

  Appoint the trustees for funds of the employee pension benefit plans of Honeywell and certain subsidiaries;

  Review funding strategies;

  Review investment policy for fund assets; and

  Oversee members of management that direct the investment of pension fund assets.

LOGO

28

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019



03  |

CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY

AND SUSTAINABILITY

CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY AND SUSTAINABILITY

Honeywell takes seriously its commitment to corporate social responsibility, protection of our environment, and creation of sustainable opportunity everywhere it operates. This unwavering commitment underlies the Vice President, Internal Audit meets in executive session with the Audit Committee)principle that good business, economic growth, and in certain instances representatives of outside advisors (for example, the Audit Committee regularly meets in executive sessionsocial responsibility go hand-in-hand. Honeywell’s Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) initiatives are aligned with the Company’s independent auditors).long-term strategy, both informing and supporting Honeywell’s strategic plans. This alignment emerges from the inclusion of Environmental and Social (E&S) considerations in scenario planning and other strategic planning processes where E&S-related business risks and opportunities are identified and addressed.

The Board’s well-informed and proactive oversight extends to E&S initiatives in three principle ways:

 

Board/CommitteePrimary Areas of Risk Oversight
Full Board•   General commercial risks such as new product launch, capital spend, raw material price increases, foreign currency fluctuation, diminished customer demand, technology obsolescence, reductions to government spending, and a slowdown in economic growth. Each of the Presidents and CEOs of our SBGs reviews these risks as part of his annual strategic review with the Board of Directors.
•   M&A integration and the M&A competitive landscape
•   Legal risks arising from litigation, intellectual property infringement, health, safety, and environment, regulatory issues such as Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”), antitrust, conflict minerals, and product liability
•   Cybersecurity including protection of customer and employee data, trade secrets and other proprietary “crown jewel” information, ensuring the security of data on the cloud, persistent threats, and cyber risks associated with our own software products

20       |        Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners     |     2018

Corporate Governance> Director Independence

Audit Committee•   Cybersecurity including protection of customer and employee data, trade secrets and other proprietary “crown jewel” information, ensuring the security of data on the cloud, persistent threats, and cyber risks associated with our own software products
•   Accounting, controls, and financial disclosure
•   Tax and liquidity management
•   Compliance matters associated with import/export, International Traffic in Arms Regulations (“ITAR”) and FCPA
•   Certain kinds of employee misconduct
•   Catastrophic risks such as pandemics, natural disasters, and plant accidents
Corporate Governance and•   Labor compliance and progress in implementing our diversity goals and objectives
Responsibility Committee•   Political contributions and lobbying
•   Health, safety, environmental, product stewardship and sustainability
Management Development and•   Senior management succession planning
Compensation Committee•   Executive compensation plans, programs and arrangements
Retirement Plans Committee•   Employee pension and saving plans

DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE

Our Corporate Governance Guidelines state that the “Board intends that, at all times, a substantial majority of its directors will be considered independent under relevant NYSE and SEC guidelines.” The Corporate Governance and Responsibility Committee conducts an annual review(CGRC) has primary jurisdiction for managing risks and opportunities associated with E&S, meeting at least once a year with the Corporate Vice President for Health, Safety, Environment, Product Stewardship and Sustainability (HSEPS), the Senior Vice President for Government Relations, the Senior Vice President for Human Resources, Security and Communications, and other leaders with responsibility for E&S to present and discuss various E&S topics.

Direct Audit Committee and Board engagement with E&S risk areas through a robust and comprehensive Enterprise Risk Management program.

Direct Board engagement on select E&S topics. In the past 12 months, management has presented to the Board on a variety of E&S initiatives such as employee diversity, sexual harassment compliance, safety, business continuity, and environmental matters.

PERFORMANCE CULTURE

Honeywell’s performance culture is defined by a set of 8 Behaviors. At their foundation is a commitment to Integrity and Ethics, Supporting Diversity, and Workplace Respect, fundamental values that underlie everything Honeywell does.

LOGO

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019

29



03  |

CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY

AND SUSTAINABILITY

Honeywell’s foundational principles reflect our vision and values and help our employees, representatives, contractors, consultants, and suppliers comply with a high standard of conduct globally. At their core is the Company’s Code of Business Conduct (the Code) that applies to all of our directors, officers and employees across the Company in all businesses and in all countries. The Code is a baseline set of requirements that enables employees to recognize and be aware of how to report integrity, compliance, and legal issues. In addition, the Code outlines our pledge to recognize the dignity of each individual, respect each employee, provide compensation and benefits that are competitive, promote self-development through training that broadens work-related skills, and value diversity of perspectives and ideas.

All employees are required to complete Code of Business Conduct training and certify each year that they will comply with the Code.

I  INTEGRITY AND ETHICS

The Code provides guidance and outlines expectations in a number of key integrity and compliance areas, including how employees should treat each other, conflicts of interest, Health, Safety, Environment, Product Stewardship and Sustainability (HSEPS), books and records, anti-corruption and proper business practices, trade compliance, insider trading, data privacy, respect for human rights, and the appropriate use of information technology and social media. In addition to the Code, Honeywell provides comprehensive training on key compliance topics, develops training scenarios, provides mechanisms for employees and third parties to report concerns (including anonymously), and ensures timely and fair reviews of integrity and compliance concerns through a best-in-class process to report and investigate allegations. Honeywell responds to 100% of reported allegations.

Moreover, the integrity and compliance program includes, among other elements, a Supplier Code of Conduct that flows down to Honeywell’s global supply chain to reinforce Honeywell’s expectation that its suppliers also will abide by our high standards of integrity and compliance, including our Conflict Minerals, Anti-Human Trafficking, Business Integrity, and Health, Safety, and Environmental policies. Suppliers are monitored via quality, ethics, and good manufacturing practices. When a supplier is found to be in violation of any Honeywell standard, they are either replaced or issued a corrective action plan. If the violation is related to unethical or illegal activities, the supplier is removed as a viable supply source.

Honeywell’s Code of Business Conduct applies to all directors, officers (including the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and Controller) and employees. Amendments to or waivers of the independenceCode of Business Conduct applicable or granted to any of Honeywell’s directors or executive officers will be published on our website. We foster a culture of integrity, ethics, and workplace respect by setting the tone at the top and by unambiguously and repeatedly reinforcing our expectations.

I  SUPPORTING DIVERSITY

The Board believes that its diversity (three women, three Hispanics, one African-American and two non-U.S.) and the diversity of Honeywell’s executive leadership (over 50% diverse by gender or ethnicity) supports our evolving business strategy. The Company’s commitment to inclusion and diversity enables better decision making, helps build competitive advantages, and furthers long-term success.

Honeywell has many inclusion and diversity councils and is involved in several professional organizations including the Society of Women Engineers, the National Society of Black Engineers, the Society of Hispanic Engineers, Anita Borg Institute, the Leadership Council on Legal Diversity, and NJ LEEP, a college access and success program serving students in the greater Newark, New Jersey, area. Honeywell leaders have won several prestigious diversity awards from the Society of Women Engineers, Diversity Journal, and NJ LEEP, as well as many others. The Company also introduced a new company-wide diversity program this January at our annual senior leadership meeting that focuses on the development and advancement of women leaders at Honeywell.

I  WORKPLACE RESPECT

Fostering a respectful workplace environment is a key priority for Honeywell. While the Company’s Code of Business Conduct and other policies have long prohibited harassment, in 2018, the Company issued a revised global harassment policy to reaffirm our commitment to maintain a respectful workplace for all. This new policy provides more explicit guidance on the expectations for each employee and makes clear that all employees who experience or witness harassment are expected to report such conduct. Our Chairman and CEO and our General Counsel communicated the launch of this updated policy in a video distributed to all employees, as well as through town hall meetings. The message continues to be reinforced through training programs, such as a sexual harassment training program that was developed in tandem with the revised policy and is being deployed globally.

30

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019



03  |

CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY

AND SUSTAINABILITY

SUSTAINABILITY

>60%

reduction in greenhouse gas intensity since 2013, exceeding our third public five-year goal and achieving 58 MT CO2e/$M at the end of 2018

>50%

energy efficiency improvement since 2013 to 132 MWh/$M (or 0.45 BBTU/$M) at the end of 2018

4,350

greenhouse gas and energy efficiency projects completed since 2010 saving an annualized$80M

127

million gallons of water saved in water-stressed regions since 2013 from150 projects

0.42

total case incident rate (TCIR), a safety record over4x better than the weighted average TCIR of the industries in which we operate

~3,000

acres remediated andrestored as valuable community assets

Latest estimate of greenhouse gas intensity and energy efficiency pending external review.

Honeywell’s Sustainable Opportunity policy is based on the principle that by integrating health, safety, and environmental considerations into all aspects of its business, Honeywell:

Protects its people and the environment;

Drives compliance with all applicable regulations;

Achieves sustainable growth and accelerated productivity; and

Develops technologies that expand the sustainable capacity of our world.

Honeywell invents and manufactures technologies that address some of the directorsworld’s most critical challenges around energy, safety, security, productivity, and reports its findingsglobal urbanization.

The Honeywell Operating System (HOS), which drives sustainable improvements and the elimination of waste in manufacturing operations to generate exceptional performance, is a critical component in how the Company thinks about sustainability. HOS is a lean-based system with roles and ownership for all employees from the plant floor to the full Board.

Based onBoard room to engage in careful planning and analysis, continuous employee engagement and improvement, and thorough follow through. Honeywell has built sustainability directly into HOS so the reporttools, personnel, activities, and recommendationculture are used to drive sustainability with the same focus used to drive other critical operational objectives, like quality, delivery, inventory, and cost. This ensures that sustainability is an integral part of the Honeywell work experience every day.

In addition, progress on our sustainability program is considered, along with other factors, in determining annual incentive compensation for senior leadership.

I  HEALTH, SAFETY, ENVIRONMENT, PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP, AND SUSTAINABILITY (HSEPS)

Honeywell’s HSEPS matters are managed by a global team of trained professionals with extensive knowledge and hundreds of years of collective experience in occupational health, chemistry, hydrology, geology, engineering, safety, industrial hygiene, materials management, and energy efficiency.

Honeywell’s Vice President of HSEPS reports to the Company’s Senior Vice President and General Counsel and has overall responsibility for HSEPS programs. A Corporate Energy and Sustainability Team, led by the Vice President of HSEPS, the Vice President of Global Real Estate, and the Director of Sustainability, helps drive the Company’s sustainability goals. Progress on these goals is reported to Honeywell’s CEO on a quarterly basis and is reviewed with the Board’s Corporate Governance and Responsibility Committee at least annually.

The Company utilizes a comprehensive HSEPS Management System based on recognized third-party-certified standards, including ISO 14001 and ISO 45001, and industry best practices. The system is fully integrated into HOS, the Board has determined that each of the non-employee nominees standingCompany’s blueprint for election to the Board at the Annual Meeting—Messrs. Angove, Ayer, Burke, Chico Pardo, Davis, Gregg, Hollick, and Paz and Mses. Deily, Lieblein and Washington—satisfies the independence criteria in the applicable NYSE listingcontinuous, sustainable operational improvement. Compliance with standards and SEC rules (including the enhanced criteria with respect to membersregulatory requirements is monitored through a company-wide, HSEPS-led audit process. The timely development and implementation of the Audit Committeeprocess improvement and the MDCC). Each Board Committee member qualifies as a non-employee director within the meaning of Rule 16b-3 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”).corrective action plans are closely monitored.

 

For a director to be considered independent, the Board must determine that the director does not have any material relationships with Honeywell, either directly as a partner, shareowner or officer of an organization that has a relationship with Honeywell, other than as a director and shareowner. Material relationships can include vendor, supplier, consulting, legal, banking, accounting, charitable and family relationships, among others.

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019

31



03  |

CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY

AND SUSTAINABILITY

 

Criteria for Director IndependenceI  HIGHLIGHTS OF OUR ENVIRONMENTAL ACHIEVEMENTS

The Board considered all relevant factsGreenhouse Gas Reduction and circumstances in makingEnergy Efficiency.Honeywell reports on its determinations, including the following:global greenhouse gas emissions publicly through CDP, various regulatory agencies, and its website, www.honeywell.com/citizenship/sustainability. A qualified third party has provided limited assurance per ISO 14064-3 of Honeywell’s 2011-2017 Scope 1 and Scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions inventories. Overall, our sustainability program has reduced our greenhouse gas intensity by more than 90%.

 

LOGONo non-employee director or nominee receives any direct compensation from

Honeywell otherexceeded its first public goal to reduce global greenhouse gases by more than under the director compensation program described onpages 24-26 of this proxy statement.

No immediate family member (within the meaning of the NYSE listing standards) of any non-employee director or nominee is an employee of Honeywell or otherwise receives direct compensation from Honeywell.
No non-employee director or nominee is affiliated with Honeywell or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates.
No non-employee director or nominee is an employee of Honeywell’s independent accountants30% and no non-employee director or nominee (or any of their respective immediate family members) is a current partner of Honeywell’s independent accountants, or was within the last three years, a partner or employee of Honeywell’s independent accountantsimprove energy efficiency by more than 20% between 2004 and personally worked on Honeywell’s audit.
No non-employee director or nominee is a member, partner, or principal of any law firm, accounting firm or investment banking firm that receives any consulting, advisory or other fees from Honeywell.
No Honeywell executive officer is on the compensation committee of the board of directors of a company that employs any of our non-employee directors or nominees (or any of their respective immediate family members) as an executive officer.
No non-employee director or nominee (or any of their respective immediate family members) is indebted to Honeywell, nor is Honeywell indebted to any non-employee director or nominee (or any of their respective immediate family members).
No non-employee director or nominee serves as an executive officer of a charitable or other tax-exempt organization that received contributions from Honeywell.
Honeywell has commercial relationships (purchase and/or sale of products and services) with companies at which our directors serve or have served as officers (Mr. Angove—Infor, Mr. Ayer—Alaska Air Group, Mr. Burke—Consolidated Edison, Mr. Davis—UPS, Ms. Lieblein—General Motors and Southwest Airlines, Mr. Paz—Express Scripts, and Ms. Washington—Gilead Sciences). In each case:2011.

 

2018     |     Proxy and NoticeLOGO

A second five-year goal, set to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an additional 15% per dollar of Annual Meetingrevenue from 2011 levels, was met three years early.

LOGO

Honeywell exceeded its third goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions per dollar of Shareowners

       |       21revenue from 2013 levels by an additional 10% by end of 2018.

Corporate Governance> IdentificationWater and EvaluationWaste. Honeywell has developed a global inventory of Director Candidateswater usage in its manufacturing operations and implements water conservation projects in areas experiencing “water stress.” Since 2013, the Company has implemented 150 water conservation projects in “water stressed” areas, saving more than 127 million gallons. Each of our businesses is required to establish annual waste targets for reducing hazardous waste, as normalized by revenue, and diverting non-hazardous waste from landfills.

Safety.The safety of our employees, contractors and partners is a top priority, and we use our HOS-based approach to maintain our safety record. Our global TCIR (the number of occupational injuries and illnesses per 100 employees) was 0.42 at the end of 2018. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the weighted average TCIR of the industries in which Honeywell operates is over 2.0. In other words, our safety record is four times better than the average of the industries in which we operate. Honeywell has received worker safety awards from governments and organizations around the world.

New Uses from Legacy Properties. Honeywell has legacy manufacturing operations dating back to the 19th century, like other companies with long, successful histories. The Company’s dedicated, cross-functional team resolves our cleanup responsibilities while at the same time creating shared value with our communities. Technical excellence, scientific rigor, and community engagement drive our work. We integrate site re-use with remediation to create solutions that are both protective and marketable. Over the last decade, we have made tremendous progress cleaning up and then helping to create reuse opportunities. At Honeywell, we do not believe that our cleanup is complete until the legacy property has been transformed into a valuable asset for the surrounding community. For example:

 

LOGO(i)

Baltimore, Maryland. Former chemical plant was remediated and has become a new downtown community, Harbor Point. Harbor Point is now home to Exelon, a leading energy provider, Morgan Stanley, and Johns Hopkins Medicine.

LOGOThe relevant products

Syracuse, New York. Allied Chemical, Honeywell’s predecessor, operated on the shores of Onondaga Lake for about 100 years. At one point the lake was considered the “Most Polluted Lake” in North America. Honeywell completed the cleanup in 2017, and services were provided on termsin 2015 was presented with an Audubon New York award for its “leadership in one of the most ambitious environmental reclamation projects in the United States.” About 1,800 acres of wetlands have already been restored and conditions determined on an arm’s-length basispreserved and consistent~1.1 million native plants are being planted. More than 250 wildlife species are now calling these areas home, and more than 120 unique bird species have been identified in and around Onondaga Lake.

LOGO

Jersey City, New Jersey. Former 95-acre waste site in Jersey City has been cleaned up; in January 2019, the site was purchased by the City of Jersey City for Bayfront, a live-work-play development with those provided by or to similarly situated customerswaterfront access and suppliers;20+ acres of open space.

HONEYWELL HOMETOWN SOLUTIONS

Honeywell demonstrates its commitment to Corporate Social Responsibility and community involvement through Honeywell Hometown Solutions, our unique global corporate citizenship program that emphasizes STEM education, inclusion and diversity, sustainability, child safety, and humanitarian relief. These programs have delivered significant and meaningful results in communities around the world:

Approximately five million students have participated in Honeywell’s science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) programs; 19 Atlanta teachers received computation and coding training at the new STEM Teacher Leadership Program at Georgia Tech, earning Georgia STEM School Certification; and Honeywell Control Labs in six universities in Turkey, Romania, and Indonesia are focused on loT technologies, serving 10,000+ students.

Students have received unique learning opportunities and educators gain valuable teaching tools to promote environmental science in the classroom through partnerships with environmental organizations in Mexico and the United States.

32

 
(ii)The relevant director did not initiate or negotiate the relevant transaction, each of which was in the ordinary course of business of both companies; and

LOGO

 

(iii)

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019

The combined amount of such purchases and sales was less than 0.8% of the consolidated gross revenues of each of Honeywell and the other company in each of the last three completed fiscal years. This level is significantly below the requirements of the NYSE listing standards for director independence, which uses a 2% of total revenue threshold and applies it to each of purchases and sales rather than the combination of the two.

 


While
03  |

CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY

AND SUSTAINABILITY

About one million U.S. students have learned potentially life-saving lessons to help avoid abduction and preventable childhood injuries with KidSmartz, and about three million students have received Safe Kids at Home fire, burns, and scalds safety training in China, India, and Malaysia.

Nearly 600 homes were repaired for low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled in the U.S. and Mexico.

In 2018, Honeywell employees received financial assistance to help recover from Hurricanes Florence and Michael in the eastern United States. Honeywell also donated $1.5 million in safety products and financial relief to support emergency personnel in North and South Carolina. Over the years, relief efforts supported employees and communities after Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, Maria, Matthew, and Sandy in the U.S.; an earthquake in Central Mexico; wildfires in Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada; flooding in Louisiana and Romania; typhoons in the Philippines; and the Great Japan Earthquake and Tsunami.

For more information about our Sustainability and Corporate Citizenship programs, please visit our website at www.honeywell.com/citizenship.

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT AND CONTRIBUTIONS

Engagement in the political process is critical to our success. Our future growth depends on forward-thinking legislation and regulation that makes society safer and more energy efficient and improves public infrastructure. We strive always to engage responsibly in the political process and to ensure that our participation is fully consistent with all applicable laws and regulations, our principles of good governance, and our high standards of ethical conduct.

We have developed a strong team of government relations professionals based in Washington, D.C. who drive our lobbying programs and initiatives. Our government relations organization is led by the Senior Vice President, Global Government Relations. Members of the government relations organization work from a global network of offices.

I  MANAGEMENT AND BOARD OVERSIGHT

The law department oversees our political engagement. The Senior Vice President, Global Government Relations reports to the Company’s Senior Vice President and General Counsel (General Counsel) and also works closely with the Vice President, Global Compliance whose organization ensures compliance with our political spending policy. The General Counsel, Senior Vice President, Global Government Relations and Vice President, Global Compliance, meet regularly with the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and his leadership team about legislative, regulatory, and political developments.

With respect to Board oversight, our public policy efforts, including all lobbying activities, political contributions and payments to trade associations and other tax-exempt organizations, are the responsibility of the CGRC, which consists entirely of independent, non-employee director’s or nominee’s servicedirectors. Each year, the CGRC receives an annual report on the Company’s policies and practices regarding political contributions. The CGRC’s oversight of our political activities ensures compliance with applicable law and our Code of Business Conduct as an outside directorwell as alignment with our policies. In addition, each year the Senior Vice President, Global Government Relations reports to the CGRC on trade association political spending and to the full Board of another company with which Honeywell does business would generallyDirectors on our global lobbying and government relations program.

I  POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

We have not be expected to raise independence issues,made any political contributions using corporate funds since at least 2009 and have no present intention of making such political contributions in the Board also considered those relationships and confirmed the absence of any material commercial relationships withfuture. Even before 2009, any such company. Specifically, those commercial relationshipscontributions were extremely rare and for minimal amounts of less than $5,000. Any use of corporate funds for political contributions require the prior approval of the Company’s General Counsel. In addition, membership in any 501(c)(6) trade association that receives more than $50,000 in membership dues from Honeywell in any fiscal year is subject to prior approval of the Company’s General Counsel and its Senior Vice President, Global Government Relations, and these trade associations are instructed not to use our funds for political contributions at the federal, state or local levels.

In 2013 and again in 2019, we revised and expanded our disclosure on our policy and procedures for political activity and contributions as well as for trade association membership. This disclosure is available on Honeywell’s website at www.honeywell.com (see “Investors/Corporate Governance/Political Contributions”).

In 2018, the Center for Political Accountability (CPA), a non-profit, non-partisan organization, assessed our disclosure for its annual CPA-Zicklin Index of Corporate Political Disclosure and Accountability (CPA-Zicklin Index). The CPA-Zicklin Index measures the transparency, policies, and practices of the S&P 500. Our enhanced disclosure on political lobbying and contributions ranked us in the ordinary course“First Tier” of businessthe 2018 CPA-Zicklin Index for Honeywellthe fifth year in a row. Our enhanced disclosure was also influenced by feedback received from our largest shareowners during our shareowner outreach initiative in which we met with shareowners to discuss their views on several topics, including Honeywell’s disclosure on lobbying and the other companies involvedpolitical contributions.

For additional detail on Honeywell’s policies and wereprocesses on termspolitical contributions and conditions availablelobbying, please see our response to similarly situated customers and suppliers.shareowner proposal number 5 on page 90.

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019

33



04  |

DIRECTOR

COMPENSATION

 

The above information was derived from Honeywell’s books and records and responses to questionnaires completed by the director nominees in connection with the preparation of this proxy statement.

IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF DIRECTOR CANDIDATESCOMPENSATION

The Corporate Governance and Responsibility Committee (“CGRC”) also serves as the Board’s Nominating Committee. The CGRC consists entirely of independent directors under applicable SEC rules and NYSE listing standards. The composition of the Board, as well as the perspective and skills of its individual members, needs to effectively support Honeywell’s growth and commercial strategy. Collectively, the Board must also be capable of overseeing risk management, capital allocation and leadership succession. Board composition and the members’ perspective and skills should evolve at an appropriate pace to meet the challenges of Honeywell’s changing commercial and strategic goals. The identification and evaluation of director candidates is an essential part of this evolutionary process.

The CGRC has primary responsibility for identification and evaluation of director candidates. In addition, included among the Honeywell Lead Director’s duties is the responsibility of working with the CEO, Chairman, CGRC and the full Board to help identify and prioritize the specific skill sets, experience, and knowledge that director candidates must possess. Potential director candidates meeting the criteria established by the CGRC and Lead Director are then identified either by reputation, existing Board members or shareowners. Director candidates are principally identified and evaluated in anticipation of upcoming director elections and other potential or expected Board vacancies.

The CGRC is also authorized, at the expense of Honeywell, to retain search firms to identify potential director candidates, as well as other external advisors, including for purposes of performing background reviews of potential candidates. Search firms retained by the CGRC shall be provided guidance as to the particular experience, skills or other characteristics that the Board is then seeking. The CGRC may delegate responsibility for day-to-day management and oversight of a search firm engagement to the Chairman of the Board and/or the Honeywell’s Senior Vice President—Human Resources, Procurement and Communications.

Candidates are interviewed multiple times by the Chairman, CEO, Lead Director and other members of the Board to ensure that candidates not only possess the requisites skills and characteristics but also the personality, leadership traits, work ethic, and independence of thought to effectively contribute as a member of the Board.

In addition to the specific criteria and priorities developed collectively, director candidates are considered by the CGRC in light of a range of more general criteria:

their exemplification of the highest standards of personal and professional integrity;
their independence from management under applicable securities law, listing regulations and Honeywell’s corporate governance guidelines;
their experience and industry background, particularly in light of the principal current and anticipated businesses of Honeywell and the strategic challenges facing Honeywell as a whole and the industries in which it participates;
their potential contribution to the composition, diversity and culture of the Board;
their age, educational background and relative skills and characteristics;
their ability to devote sufficient time to performing their duties in an effective manner; and
their ability and willingness to constructively challenge management through active participation in Board and Committee meetings and to otherwise devote sufficient time to Board duties.

22       |        Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners     |     2018

Corporate Governance> Director Orientation and Continuing Education

While Honeywell’s Corporate Governance Guidelines do not prescribe diversity standards, as a matter of practice, the CGRC considers diversity in the context of the Board as a whole and takes into account the personal characteristics (gender, ethnicity, age) and experience (industry, professional, public service) of current and prospective directors to facilitate Board deliberations that reflect a broad range of perspectives.

After this process, the Board nominates the successful candidate for election to the Board at the Annual Meeting of Shareowners. From time to time, the Board fills vacancies in its membership, using the same process described above, which arise between annual meetings of shareowners.

To ensure that the Board continues to evolve and be refreshed in a manner that serves the changing business and strategic needs of Honeywell, before recommending for re-nomination a slate of incumbent directors for an additional term, the CGRC evaluates whether incumbent directors possess the requisite skills and perspective, both individually and collectively. This evaluation is based primarily on the results of the annual review it performs with the Board of the requisite skills and characteristics of Board members, as well as the composition of the Board as a whole, and the results of the Board’s annual self-evaluation.

This year, one director, Duncan B. Angove, is nominated for election to the Board of Directors who has not previously stood for election to the Board by the shareowners. Mr. Angove was identified by a third-party search firm and was elected to the Board, effective February 14, 2018.

Shareowners wishing to recommend a director candidate to the CGRC for its consideration should write to the CGRC, in care of Corporate Secretary, Honeywell, 115 Tabor Road, Morris Plains, New Jersey 07950. To receive meaningful consideration, a recommendation should include the candidate’s name, biographical data, and a description of his or her qualifications in light of the above criteria. Shareowners wishing to nominate a director should follow the procedures set forth in the Company’s By-laws and described under “Director Nominations” onpage 92 of this proxy statement.

Honeywell did not receive any recommendation of a director candidate from a shareowner, or group of shareowners, that beneficially owned more than 3% of Honeywell’s common stock (“Common Stock”) for at least three years as of the date of recommendation.

OUR COMMITMENT TO BOARD DIVERSITY

While Honeywell’s Corporate Governance Guidelines do not prescribe a diversity policy or standards, as a matter of practice, the CGRC is committed to enhancing both the diversity of the Board itself and the perspectives and values that are discussed in Board and Committee meetings. Our current Board composition reflects this approach and the Board’s commitment to diversity.

BOARD TENURE

We believe that electing directors with a mix of tenures facilitates effective Board oversight. Hence, careful consideration is made to achieve the appropriate balance. Directors with many years of service to Honeywell provide the Board with a deep knowledge of our Company, while newer directors lend fresh perspectives.

DIRECTOR ORIENTATION AND CONTINUING EDUCATION

As part of Honeywell’s director orientation program, new directors participate in one-on-one introductory meetings with Honeywell business and functional leaders and are given presentations by members of senior management on Honeywell’s strategic plans, financial statements and key issues, policies and practices. Directors may enroll in director continuing education programs at Honeywell’s expense on corporate governance and critical issues associated with a director’s service on a public company board. Our senior management meets regularly with the Board and meets annually to review with the Board the operating plan of the Company and each of our SBGs. The Board also periodically participates in site visits to Honeywell’s facilities.

DIRECTOR ATTENDANCE AT ANNUAL MEETINGS

Honeywell has no specific policy regarding director attendance at its Annual Meeting of Shareowners. Generally, however, Board and Committee meetings are held immediately preceding and following the Annual Meeting of Shareowners, with directors attending the Annual Meeting. All of the directors attended last year’s Annual Meeting of Shareowners.

2018     |     Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners       |       23

Corporate Governance> Director Compensation

DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

The CGRC(CGRC) reviews and makes recommendations to the Board regarding the form and amount of compensation for non-employee directors. Directors who are employees of Honeywell receive no compensation for service on the Board. Honeywell’s director compensation program is designed to enable continued attraction and retention of highly qualified directors and to address the time, effort, expertise, and accountability required of active Board membership.

Annual Compensation

ELEMENTS OF COMPENSATION

In general, the CGRC and the Board believe that annual compensation for non-employee directors should consist of both a cash component, designed to compensate members for their service on the Board and its Committees,committees, and an equity component, designed to align the interests of directors and shareowners and, by vesting over time, to create an incentive for continued service on the Board.shareowners.

I  ANNUAL COMPENSATION

 

Board of Directors’ Annual CompensationRetainer

  
Board Retainer$100,000

 $100,000 per annum paid in quarterly installments

Lead Director Compensation

$35,000

 $35,000 per annum - in addition to Board Retainer

Board

Committee Membership Compensation

$10,000

 $10,000 per annum for each Board Committeecommittee membership ($15,000 per annum for members of the Audit Committee.)Committee)

Committee Chair Compensation

Board Committee Chairs receive an additional cash retainer of $20,000.

 $20,000 per annum - in addition to committee membership compensation

Common Stock Equivalents

  
These amounts are credited annually but payment is deferred until termination of Board service. Payments are made in cash, as either a lump sum or in equal annual installments.At the commencement of each

 Each year, $60,000 in Common Stock equivalents is automatically credited to each director’s account in the Deferred Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors. Dividend equivalents are credited with respect to these amounts.

 These amounts are credited annually but payment is deferred until termination of Board service. Payments are made in cash, as either a lump sum or in equal annual installments.

Annual Equity Grants

  

 Each non-employee director receives an annual equity grant with a target value of $100,000 consisting of 50% restricted stock units (RSUs) and 50% options to purchase shares of Common Stock at a price per share equal to the fair market value of a share of Common Stock on the date of grant, which is the date of the Annual Meeting of Shareowners.

Stock options vest in equal annual installments over the four years following the grant date. The options also become fully vested at the earliest of the director’s retirement from the Board on or after the mandatory retirement age set by the Board and in effect on the date of grant (currently age 75), death, disability or change in control, as set forth in the 2016 Stock Plan for Non-Employee Directors of Honeywell (the “Non-EmployeeNon-Employee Director Plan”)Plan) and the relevant award agreements.

Each non-employee director receives an annual equity grant with a target value of $100,000 consisting of 50% restricted stock units (“RSUs”) and 50% options to purchase shares of Common Stock at a price per share equal to the fair market value of a share of Common Stock on the date of grant, which is the date of the Annual Meeting of Shareowners.

The RSUs will vest on the earliest of the third anniversary of the date of grant, the director’s death or disability, or change in control.

Deferred Compensation

I  DEFERRED COMPENSATION

A non-employee director may elect to defer all or any portion of his or her annual cash retainers and fees, until a specified calendar year or termination of Board service. Compensation is credited to their account in the Deferred Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors. Amounts credited either accrue interest (2.69%(3.38% for 2017)2018) or are valued as if invested in a Honeywell Common Stock fund or one of the other funds available to participants in our employee savings plan.plan as elected by the participant. The unit price of the Honeywell Common Stock fund is increased to take dividends into account. In addition to payments at the termination of Board service, upon a change of control, as defined in the Non-Employee Director Plan, a director may receive, pursuant to a prior election, a lump-sum payment for amounts deferred before 2006.

Mr. Chico Pardo participates in the legacy Honeywell Inc. Non-Employee Directors Fee and Stock Unit Plan. The last fee deferral under this plan occurred on December 1, 1999. Since that date, deferred amounts are increased only by dividend equivalents. Payment will be made to the participating director in whole shares of Common Stock following the earlier of a change in control or the director’s termination of Board service for any reason, in one payment or annual installments, as elected by the director.

 

Other Benefits

34

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019



04  |

DIRECTOR

COMPENSATION

 

Non-employee directors are also provided with $350,000 in business travel accident insurance. They are also eligible to elect to receive $100,000 in term life insurance. Directors electedI  RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT GRANT UPON ELECTION TO BOARD

Upon their election to the Board, after September 2008 are responsible for paying

24       |        Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners     |     2018

Corporate Governance> Director Compensation

premiums for term life insurance which they elect to receive. In 2017, Mr. Hollick and Ms. Lieblein were also eligible to participate in company provided medical plans under a legacy arrangement not available to other directors. Honeywell also matches, dollar for dollar, any charitable contribution made by a director to any charity, up to a maximum of $25,000 in the aggregate per director, per calendar year. In addition, directors may utilize available Company aircraft for travel to and from Board and Committee meetings.

Restricted Stock Unit Grant Upon Election to Board

Newnew non-employee directors receive a one-time grant of 3,000 RSUs upon their election to the Board that vest on the earliest of the fifth anniversary of continuous Board service, death, disability, or change in control. During this period, the director will receive dividend equivalents that will be automatically reinvested into additional RSUs which vest according to the same schedule as the underlying RSUs to which they relate. The director may defer the receipt of the RSUs on substantially the same terms and conditions as Honeywell officers with respect to new grants of RSUs.

I  CHARITABLE MATCH

Stock Ownership Guidelines

Director stock ownership guidelines have been adopted under which each non-employee director, while serving asHoneywell also matches, dollar for dollar, any charitable contribution made by a director to any qualified charity, up to an aggregate maximum of $25,000 per director, per calendar year. For 2018, matching charitable contributions were made by Honeywell must hold Common Stock (including restricted sharesin the amounts of $25,000 for each of Messrs. Ayer, Burke, Chico Pardo, Gregg, Hollick and RSUs and/or Common Stock equivalents)Paz and Ms. Deily and in the amount of $15,223 for Ms. Lieblein.

I  OTHER BENEFITS

Directors may utilize available Company aircraft for travel to and from Board and committee meetings, and non-employee directors are provided with a market value of at least five times the annual cash retainer (or $500,000). They must hold net gain shares from option exercises for one year. “Net gain shares” means the number of shares obtained by exercising the option, less the number of shares the director sells$350,000 in business travel accident insurance. In addition, they are also eligible to cover the exercise price of the options and pay applicable taxes.elect to receive $100,000 in term life insurance. Directors have five years from electionelected to the Board after September 2008 are responsible for paying premiums for term life insurance which they elect to attainreceive. Mr. Hollick is also eligible to participate in a Company-provided medical plan in the prescribed ownership threshold. All current directors (other than Mr. Angove who joined the Board in February 2018) have attained the prescribed ownership threshold.UK under a legacy arrangement not available to other directors.

2018 DIRECTOR COMPENSATION TABLE

 

                               

Director Name

  Fees
Earned
or Paid in
Cash($)(1)
   Stock
Awards($)(2)(3)
   Option
Awards($)(2)(4)
   Change in Pension
Value and
Nonqualified Deferred
Compensation
Earnings($)(5)
   All Other
Compensation($)(6)
   Total($) 
                               

Duncan B. Angove

  

 

$173,434

 

  

 

$50,116

 

  

 

$50,314

 

  

 

$        —

 

  

 

$         4

 

  

 

$273,868

 

William S. Ayer

  

 

$180,000

 

  

 

$50,116

 

  

 

$50,314

 

  

 

$        —

 

  

 

$25,004

 

  

 

$305,434

 

Kevin Burke

  

 

$185,000

 

  

 

$50,116

 

  

 

$50,314

 

  

 

$        —

 

  

 

$25,004

 

  

 

$310,434

 

Jaime Chico Pardo

  

 

$215,000

 

  

 

$50,116

 

  

 

$50,314

 

  

 

$        —

 

  

 

$27,335

 

  

 

$342,765

 

D. Scott Davis

  

 

$205,000

 

  

 

$50,116

 

  

 

$50,314

 

  

 

$10,319

 

  

 

$  1,991

 

  

 

$317,740

 

Linnet F. Deily

  

 

$205,000

 

  

 

$50,116

 

  

 

$50,314

 

  

 

$        —

 

  

 

$30,035

 

  

 

$335,465

 

Judd Gregg

  

 

$185,000

 

  

 

$50,116

 

  

 

$50,314

 

  

 

$        —

 

  

 

$25,004

 

  

 

$310,434

 

Clive Hollick

  

 

$180,000

 

  

 

$50,116

 

  

 

$50,314

 

  

 

$11,399

 

  

 

$45,339

 

  

 

$337,168

 

Grace D. Lieblein

  

 

$180,000

 

  

 

$50,116

 

  

 

$50,314

 

  

 

$        —

 

  

 

$15,227

 

  

 

$295,657

 

George Paz

  

 

$205,000

 

  

 

$50,116

 

  

 

$50,314

 

  

 

$        —

 

  

 

$25,004

 

  

 

$330,434

 

Bradley Sheares(7)

  

 

$103,846

 

  

 

$        —

 

  

 

$        —

 

  

 

$21,695

 

  

 

$     431

 

  

 

$125,972

 

Robin L. Washington

  

 

$194,287

 

  

 

$50,116

 

  

 

$50,314

 

  

 

$        —

 

  

 

$         4

 

  

 

$294,721

 

Mr. David M. Cote was an executive director until April 23, 2018, when he retired from the Board. He did not receive any additional compensation for services provided as a director.

 

DIRECTOR COMPENSATION-FISCAL YEAR 2017

Director Name Fees
Earned or
Paid in Cash($)(1)
 Stock
Awards($)(2)(3)
 Option
Awards($)(2)(4)
 Change in Pension
Value and
Nonqualified
Deferred
Compensation
Earnings($)(5)
 All Other
Compensation($)(6)
 Total($)
William Ayer $180,000 $50,006 $50,008 $0 $25,004 $305,018
Kevin Burke $185,000 $50,006 $50,008 $0 $25,004 $310,018
Jaime Chico Pardo $215,000 $50,006 $50,008 $0 $27,139 $342,153
D. Scott Davis $205,000 $50,006 $50,008 $5,648 $1,831 $312,493
Linnet Deily $205,000 $50,006 $50,008 $0 $34,463 $339,477
Judd Gregg $185,000 $50,006 $50,008 $0 $25,004 $310,018
Clive Hollick $180,000 $50,006 $50,008 $6,239 $41,813 $328,066
Grace Lieblein $180,000 $50,006 $50,008 $0 $15,004 $295,018
George Paz $205,000 $50,006 $50,008 $0 $25,004 $330,018
Bradley Sheares $200,000 $50,006 $50,008 $11,875 $26,201 $338,090
Robin Washington $185,000 $50,006 $50,008 $0 $25,004 $310,018
(1)

Includes all fees earned, whether paid in cash or deferred under the Deferred Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors (including amounts treated as deferred in the Honeywell Common Stock Fund).

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019

35



04  |

DIRECTOR

COMPENSATION

(2)

The following table reflects all outstanding stock awards and option awards held at December 31, 20172018 by each of the listed individuals.individuals:

 

2018     |     Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners       |       25

Certain Relationships and Related Transactions> Applicable Policies and Procedures

            
 

  Director Name

 

  

 

 

 

 

Outstanding
Stock Awards

 

 

 
 

 

   

 

Outstanding
Option Awards

 

 
 

 

            

      

 

  Mr. Angove

  

 

3,554

 

  

 

2,297

 

 

  Mr. Ayer

  

 

4,689

 

  

 

11,744

 

 

  Mr. Burke

  

 

1,264

 

  

 

31,036

 

 

  Mr. Chico Pardo

  

 

1,264

 

  

 

31,036

 

 

  Mr. Davis

  

 

1,264

 

  

 

20,536

 

 

  Ms. Deily

  

 

1,264

 

  

 

20,536

 

 

  Mr. Gregg

  

 

1,264

 

  

 

25,786

 

 

  Mr. Hollick

  

 

1,264

 

  

 

31,036

 

 

  Ms. Lieblein

  

 

1,264

 

  

 

17,464

 

 

  Mr. Paz

  

 

1,264

 

  

 

36,286

 

 

  Dr. Sheares(7)

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

  Ms. Washington

  

 

1,264

 

  

 

17,464

 

 

Director NameOutstanding
Stock Awards at
12/31/17
Outstanding Option
Awards at 12/31/17
Mr. Ayer4,5829,047
Mr. Burke1,37027,524
Mr. Chico Pardo1,37037,580
Mr. Davis1,37022,496
Ms. Deily1,37027,524
Mr. Gregg1,37022,496
Mr. Hollick1,37027,524
Ms. Lieblein1,37014,526
Mr. Paz1,37032,552
Dr. Sheares1,37022,496
Ms. Washington4,69614,526
(3)

The amounts set forth in this column represent the aggregate grant date fair value of stock awards computed in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718. The fair value of each stock award is estimated on the date of grant by averaging the high and low of the Company’s stock price on the day of grant. Stock awards of 386335 shares were made to non-employee directors in April 20172018 with a value of $129.55$149.60 per share.

(4)

The amounts set forth in this column represent the aggregate grant date fair value of option awards computed in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718. The fair value of each option award is estimated on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model. Option awards of 2,8792,200 shares were made to non-employee directors in April 20172018 with a Black-Scholes value of $17.37$22.87 per share. A more detailed discussion of the assumptions used in the valuation of option awards made in fiscal year 20172018 may be found in Note 1819 of the Notes to the Financial Statements in the Company’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017.2018.

(5)

Amounts included in this column reflect above-market earnings on deferred compensation.compensation from pre-2006 deferrals. Amounts invested in cash under the Deferred Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors are credited with the same rate of interest that applies to executives under the Honeywell Salary and Incentive Award Deferral Plan for Selected Employees. Deferrals for the 2006 plan year and later earn a rate of interest, compounded daily, based on the Company’s 15-year cost of borrowing. TheThis rate is subject to change annually. For 2017, this rateannually and was 2.69%, and is set at 3.38% for 2018. Deferrals for the 2005 plan year earn a rate of interest, compounded daily, which was set at an above-market rate before the beginning of the plan year and is subject to change annually. Deferrals for the 2004 plan year and prior plan years earn a rate of interest, compounded daily, that was set at an above-market rate before the beginning of each plan year. This rate is fixed until the deferral is distributed.

(6)See “Director Compensation—Other

Includes amounts described in “Charitable Match” and “Other Benefits” aboveabove.

(7)

Dr. Sheares retired from the Board on April 23, 2018.

STOCK OWNERSHIP GUIDELINES

Director stock ownership guidelines have been adopted under which each non-employee director, while serving as a director of Honeywell, must hold Common Stock (including shares held personally, RSUs, and/or Common Stock equivalents) with a market value of at least five times the annual cash retainer (or $500,000). Directors have five years from election to the Board to attain the prescribed ownership threshold. All current directors (other than Mr. Angove who joined the Board in February 2018) have attained the prescribed ownership threshold.

In addition, directors must hold net gain shares from option exercises for a descriptionone year. “Net gain shares” means the number of shares obtained by exercising the option, less the number of shares the director sells to cover the exercise price of the items included inoptions and pay applicable taxes.

On average, Honeywell non-employee directors held, as of December 31, 2018, Common Stock with a market value of29x the All Other Compensation column for 2017. Honeywell matched charitable contributions in the amounts of:annual cash retainer, reflecting their deep commitment to shareowner value creation

 

Director NameMatched Charitable
Contributions
Mr. Ayer

36

$25,000

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019



Mr. Burke05  |$25,000
Mr. Chico Pardo$25,000
Ms. Deily$25,000
Mr. Gregg$25,000
Mr. Hollick$25,000
Ms. Lieblein$15,000
Mr. Paz$25,000
Dr. Sheares$25,000
Ms. Washington$25,000

PROPOSAL NO. 2:

ADVISORY VOTE TO APPROVE EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

 

CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS

Applicable Policies and Procedures

Honeywell has written policies and procedures for approval or ratification of related person transactions. Article EIGHTH of Honeywell’s Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation provides that a related or interested party transaction shall not be void or voidable if such transaction is duly authorized or ratified by a majority of the disinterested members of the Board of Directors. Consistent with SEC rules, a related or interested party transaction includes a transaction between the Company and a director, director nominee or executive officer of the Company or a beneficial owner of more than 5% of the Company’s Common Stock or any of their respective immediate family members. Furthermore, the Honeywell Code of Business Conduct requires that each director and executive officer report to the Board of Directors on an ongoing basis any relationship or transaction that may create or appear to create a conflict between the personal interests of those individuals (or their immediate family members) and the interests of the Company. A conflict, or appearance of a conflict, might arise, for example, by accepting gifts or loans from a current or potential customer, supplier or competitor, owning a financial interest

26       |        Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners     |     2018

Stock Ownership Information> Five Percent Owners of Company Stock

in, or serving in a business capacity with, an outside enterprise that competes with or does or wishes to do business with the Company, serving as an intermediary for the benefit of a third party in transactions involving the Company or using confidential Company information or other corporate assets for personal profit.

If a conflict of interest or related party transaction is of a type or a nature that falls within the scope of oversight of a particular Board Committee, it is referred to that Committee for review. The Board or the responsible Committee must review any potential conflict and determine whether any action is required. This includes whether to authorize, ratify or direct the unwinding of the relationship or transaction under consideration, as well as ensure that appropriate controls are in place to protect Honeywell and its shareowners. In making that determination, the Board or responsible Committee considers all relevant facts and circumstances, such as:

The benefits of the transaction to Honeywell;
The terms of the transaction and whether they are arm’s-length and in the ordinary course of the Company’s business;
The direct or indirect nature of the related person’s interest in the transaction;
The size and expected term of the transaction; and
Other facts and circumstances that bear on the materiality of the related person transaction under applicable law and listing standards.

Each director and officer also completes and signs a questionnaire at the end of each fiscal year to confirm that there are no material relationships or related person transactions between such individuals and the Company other than those previously disclosed to Honeywell. This ensures that all material relationships and related person transactions are identified, reviewed and disclosed in accordance with applicable policies, procedures and regulations.

Related Person Transactions

Mr. John Cote, the son of Mr. David Cote, is the founder, majority owner and chief executive officer of Industrial Inspection & Analysis, Inc. (“IIA”). IIA acquired QC Group, LLC in November 2015. QC Group provides metrology/dimensional inspection services to one of Honeywell’s businesses as part of Honeywell’s quality control processes. The services are provided on arm’s length terms and conditions. QC Group received approximately $500,000 from Honeywell in 2017 for payment of services. QC Group and Honeywell entered into the services arrangement prior to IIA’s acquisition of QC Group.

STOCK OWNERSHIP INFORMATION

FIVE PERCENT OWNERS OF COMPANY STOCK

The following table lists information about those holders known to Honeywell to be the beneficial owners of 5% or more of the outstanding shares of Common Stock as of December 31, 2017.

Name and Complete Mailing Address Number of
Shares
 Percent of
Common Stock
Outstanding
 
The Vanguard Group     
100 Vanguard Blvd., Malvern, PA 19355 51,357,383(1)6.74% 
BlackRock, Inc.     
55 East 52nd Street, New York, NY 10055 47,575,017(2)6.3% 
(1)The information is based on a Schedule 13G/A filed by The Vanguard Group with the SEC on February 9, 2018. The Vanguard Group and certain related entities have sole voting power in respect of 1,054,244 shares and sole dispositive power in respect of 50,153,579 shares.
(2)The information is based on a Schedule 13G/A filed by BlackRock, Inc. with the SEC on January 25, 2018. BlackRock, Inc. has sole voting power in respect of 41,087,639 shares and sole dispositive power in respect of 47,575,018 shares.

2018     |     Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners       |       27

Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance

STOCK OWNERSHIP OF DIRECTORS AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

The following table lists information as of February 23, 2018 about the beneficial ownership of Common Stock by each director or director nominee, each executive officer named in the Summary Compensation Table, and by all directors (including nominees) and executive officers of Honeywell as a group. Except as otherwise noted, the individuals listed in the following table have the sole power to vote or transfer the shares reflected in the table.

  Components of Beneficial Ownership (Number of Shares)    
Name(1) Common Stock
Beneficially
Owned
  Right
To Acquire(2)
  Other
Stock-Based
Holdings(3)
  Total Number
of Shares(4)
Darius Adamczyk  38,456   583,509   2,260   624,225
Duncan B. Angove  0   0   350   350
William S. Ayer  0   3,774   2,209   5,983
Kevin Burke  13,310   22,251   8,365   43,926
Jaime Chico Pardo  36,064   32,307   31,962   100,333
David M. Cote  1,774,598   3,745,461   17,332   5,537,391
D. Scott Davis  19,963   17,223   16,743   53,929
Linnet F. Deily  6,219   17,223   14,953   38,395
Judd Gregg  8,006   17,223   11,204   36,433
Clive Hollick  4,654   22,251   22,394   49,299
Grace D. Lieblein  4,338   9,253   5,348   18,939
George Paz  5,995   27,279   10,862   44,136
Bradley T. Sheares  3,310   17,223   18,831   39,364
Robin L. Washington  994   12,271   7,234   20,499
Thomas A. Szlosek  6,647   523,572   49,242   579,461
Timothy O. Mahoney  168,612   779,004   77,734   1,025,350
Krishna Mikkilineni  102,287   597,744   1,987   702,018
Rajeev Gautam  29,164   89,245   2,036   120,445
All directors, nominees and executive officers as a group, including the above-named persons (23 people)  2,377,354   7,212,772   343,397   9,933,523
(1)c/o Honeywell International Inc., 115 Tabor Road, Morris Plains, New Jersey 07950.
(2)Includes shares which the named individual or group has the right to acquire through the exercise of vested stock options, and shares which the named individual or group has the right to acquire through the vesting of performance shares, RSUs and stock options within 60 days of February 23, 2018.
(3)Includes shares and/or share-equivalents in deferred accounts, as to which no voting or investment power exists.
(4)The total beneficial ownership for any individual is less than 1% and the total for the group is approximately 1.33% of the shares of Common Stock outstanding.

SECTION 16(A) BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP REPORTING COMPLIANCE

Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act requires our directors, executive officers, and persons who own more than 10% of our Common Stock to file reports of ownership and changes in ownership of our Common Stock with the SEC. Based on the information available to us during fiscal year 2017, we believe that all applicable Section 16(a) filing requirements were met on a timely basis, other than a late Form 4 filing for Jaime Chico Pardo due to administrative error.

SEC FILINGS AND REPORTS

Our Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, and any amendments to those reports, are available free of charge on our website atwww.honeywell.com under the heading “Investor Relations” (see “SEC Filings & Reports”) immediately after they are filed with or furnished to the SEC.

28       |        Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners     |     2018


2018     |     Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners       |       29

Executive Compensation> Proposal No. 2: Advisory Vote to Approve Executive Compensation

Proposal No.PROPOSAL 2: ADVISORY VOTE TO APPROVE EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Honeywell seeks a non-binding advisory vote from its shareowners to approve the compensation of its Named Executive Officers (NEOs) as described in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis section beginning onpage 3138 and the Executive Compensation Tables section beginning onpage 61.64. This vote is commonly known as “Say-on-Pay,” and the Board has adopted a policy of providing for an annual Say-on-Pay vote.

We encourage you to read the Compensation Discussion and Analysis and Executive Compensation Table sectionsTables section to learn more about our executive compensation programs and policies andthat reflect changes made over the changes being madepast two years in response to shareowner feedback. The Board believes that its 20172018 compensation decisions and our executive compensation programs align the interests of shareowners and executives by emphasizing variable, at-risk compensation largely tied to measurable performance goals utilizing an appropriate balance of near-term and long-term objectives.

This vote is not intended to address a specific item of compensation, but rather our overall compensation policies and procedures related to the Named Executive Officers.NEOs. Because the Say-on-Pay vote is advisory, it will not be binding upon the Board. However, the Board will take into account the outcome of the vote and feedback from discussions with investorsshareowners when considering future executive compensation arrangements.

The Board recommends that shareowners vote in favor of the following resolution:

“RESOLVED,that the Company’s shareowners approve, on an advisory basis, the compensation of the Named Executive Officers, as disclosed in the Company’s proxy statementProxy Statement for the 20182019 Annual Meeting of Shareowners pursuant to the executive compensation disclosure rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission, including the Compensation Discussion and Analysis, the 20172018 Summary Compensation Table and the other related tables and disclosure.”

 

Your Board of Directors unanimously recommends a vote FOR this proposal.
LOGO

YOUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS A VOTEFOR THIS PROPOSAL.

 

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019

37



06  |

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION

AND ANALYSIS

NOTES AND DEFINITIONS TO COMPENSATION

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

 

TABLE OF

CONTENTS

|

Named Executive Officers

Pg 39

|

Performance Summary

Pg 39

|

Our Compensation Program

Pg 41

Philosophy and Approach

41

Program Design and Link to Business Strategy and Performance42
How Compensation Decisions are Made42
Engagement with Shareowners on Compensation43
Compensation Peer Group43
Performance Relative to Peers45
|2018 Compensation DecisionsPg 47
2018 Total Annual Direct Compensation for Each NEO48
Elements of 2018 Total Annual Direct Compensation49
CFO Succession50
|2018 Annual Incentive Compensation Plan DecisionsPg 50
|2018 Long-Term Incentive Compensation DecisionsPg 56
|Other Compensation and Benefit ProgramsPg 59
Retirement Plans59
Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plans59
Benefits and Perquisites59
|Compensation Practices and PoliciesPg 60
|Risk Oversight ConsiderationsPg 61
Stock Ownership Guidelines62
Recoupment/Clawback62
Tax Deductibility of Executive Compensation63
Pledging and Hedging Transactions in Company Securities63
|Management Development and Compensation Committee ReportPg 63

AllNon-GAAP Financial Measures

This Proxy Statement, including the Compensation Discussion and Analysis, contains financial measures presented on a non-GAAP basis. Honeywell’s non-GAAP financial measures used in this document are as follows: segment profit, on an overall Honeywell Earnings Per Share (“EPS”) resultsbasis, a measure by which we assess operating performance, which we define as operating income adjusted for certain items as presented in Appendix A; segment margin, on an overall Honeywell basis, which we define as segment profit divided by sales; organic sales growth, which we define as sales growth less the impacts from foreign currency translation, acquisitions and divestitures for the first 12 months following transaction date, and impacts from adoption of the new accounting guidance on revenue from contracts with customers that arise solely due to non-comparable accounting treatment of contracts existing in the prior period; adjusted free cash flow, which we define as cash flow from operations less capital expenditures and which we adjust to exclude pension mark-to-market adjustment. 2016 EPS and net income also exclude 4Q16 debt refinancing charges. 2017 EPS and net income also excludethe impact of separation costs related to spin-offs of the HomesGarrett and Global Distribution businessResideo spins, if and Transportation Systems business (“as noted in the document; adjusted free cash flow conversion, which we define as adjusted free cash flow divided by net income attributable to Honeywell, excluding pension mark-to-market expenses, debt refinancing expenses, separation costs”) and provisional chargescosts related to the spins, the 4Q17 U.S. tax legislation (“Tax Reform”). 2017 EPScharge, and net income V%adjustments to such charge, if and as noted in Appendix A; and adjusted earnings per share, which we adjust to exclude pension mark-to-market adjustment, 4Q16expenses, as well as for other components, such as debt refinancing charges,expense, separation costs provisional charges related to Tax Reform,the spins, the 4Q17 U.S. tax legislation charge, adjustments to such charge, and 2016 divestitures.after-tax segment profit contribution from Garrett and Resideo in the periods noted in Appendix A, net of spin indemnification impacts assuming both indemnification agreements were effective in such periods, if and as noted in Appendix A. Other than references to reported earnings per share, all references to earnings per share in this document are so adjusted. The respective tax rates applied when adjusting earnings per share for these items are identified in the reconciliations presented in Appendix A. Management believes that, when considered together with reported amounts, these measures are useful to investors and management in understanding our ongoing operations and in the analysis of ongoing operating trends. These metrics should be considered in addition to, and not as replacements for, the most comparable GAAP measure. Refer to Appendix A for reconciliations of non-GAAP financial measures to the most directly comparable GAAP measures.

Other Definitions

 

Peer Median Reflects Compensation Peer Group Median; Median

Multi-Industry Peer Median Includes EMR, GE, MMM, and UTX.

Peer Median Net Income, EPS Reflect Adjusted (Non-GAAP) Results.

Peer Results Reflect Fiscal Years Indicated.Adjusted Net Income Before Interest = Non-GAAP Net Income + After-Tax Interest

Net Investment = Book Value Of Equity + Total Debt

ROIC = Adjusted Net Income Before Interest ÷ Net Investment (2-Point Average)

Adjusted Net Income Before Interest = Non-GAAP Net Income + After-Tax Interest

Net Investment = Book Value Of Equity + Total Debt

Free Cash Flow = Cash Flow From Operations Less Capital Expenditures

ROA = Adjusted Net Income ÷ Total Assets (2-Point Average)

ROE = Adjusted Net Income ÷ Total Shareowner Equity (2-Point Average)

 

 

30       |        

38

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners     Statement  |2018  2019



06  |

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION

AND ANALYSIS

Executive Compensation> Compensation Discussion And Analysis

 

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSISOUR NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

 

Our 2017

LOGO

Thomas A. Szlosek, our former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (retired in 2018) is also reported in this Proxy Statement as a Named Executive Officers (“NEOs”):Officer as required by SEC rules.

Darius Adamczyk
President & CEO
Thomas A. Szlosek
Senior Vice President
Chief Financial Officer
Timothy O. Mahoney
President & CEO
Aerospace
Krishna Mikkilineni
Senior Vice President
Engineering, Ops & IT
Rajeev Gautam
President & CEO
PMT
David M. Cote
Executive Chairman

PERFORMANCE SUMMARY

Honeywell Continued Our Track Record of Performance In 2017LOGO  DELIVERED STRONG OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE IN 2018 WHILE EXECUTING TWO COMPLEX SPINS

In 2017,2018, Honeywell continued to successfully executedelivered on itsour commitments and deliver superior results.grew sales, segment margin, adjusted earnings per share (EPS), and adjusted free cash flow (FCF) year over year, while executing two complex spins that refocused the portfolio. We continued to build on our track record of performance as evidenced by our performance againstresults versus the key metrics we use as part ofthe basis for our executive compensation programs. In 2018, we delivered:

Organic sales growth of 6%

Adjusted earnings per share growth of 12%

60 basis points of segment margin expansion

100% adjusted free cash flow conversion; 22% adjusted free cash flow growth

The table below showsshowcases our performancesuccess on these metrics over the past three years (2015-2017)(2016-2018):

 

2018     |     Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners       |       31

Executive Compensation> Compensation Discussion And AnalysisLOGO

 

Honeywell Delivered High-Quality Earnings Growth In 2017

Honeywell is proud of the high-quality earnings per share growth we delivered in 2017. The majority of our year-over-year earnings growth came from improved operational performance. Excluding the 14-cent contribution in 2016 from 2016 divestitures, we achieved more than 10% earnings per share growth. This was driven by our commercial excellence processes, which are driving higher sales at better margins; the deployment of the Honeywell Operating System, or HOS Gold; and continued rigor on our productivity initiatives.

Honeywell Made Significant Strategic Progress In 2017, Better Positioned For Long-Term Sustainable Growth

The past year was particularly significant for Honeywell in terms of executive leadership succession and portfolio changes that set the stage for many years of sustainable growth and financial outperformance:

Darius Adamczyk became our new CEO in April 2017. Mr. Adamczyk’s succession to the CEO role was highly successful both in terms of continued quarter-to-quarter financial performance and the refocused strategic direction he established that aims to make Honeywell the world’s leading software-industrial company, while also enhancing its organic growth rate.
Mr. Adamczyk and his management team led a thorough, comprehensive portfolio review that resulted in the October 10, 2017 announcement of our intention to spin our Homes product portfolio and ADI global distribution business, as well as our Transportation Systems business, into two stand-alone, publicly-traded companies. The stand-alone businesses will be better positioned to maximize shareowner value through focused strategic decision making and capital allocation tailored for their end markets.
As part of that portfolio review, Mr. Adamczyk refocused Honeywell’s strategy to take better advantage of our core technology and software strengths in high-growth businesses that participate in six attractive industrial end markets. Each of these end markets is characterized by favorable global mega trends, including the emerging middle class in high growth regions, productivity, energy efficiency, infrastructure investment, urbanization, and safety. The ongoing portfolio of businesses is best positioned to leverage Honeywell’s capabilities in technology, operating systems, and financial and business models.
We continued to demonstrate that outstanding financial outperformance can be accomplished while holding aggregate annual bonus payments to executives (ICP – Incentive Compensation Plan) relatively flat. Since 2003, Honeywell’s management team has nearly doubled sales and more than quadrupled earnings per share while reducing the number of executives. Our total shareowner return has grown by 817% since 2003, while our incentive compensation has only grown 14% over that period.

32       |        Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners     |     2018

Executive Compensation> Compensation Discussion And Analysis

Our Capital Allocation Strategy Appropriately Balances Near Term Financial Performance With Sustainable Growth

Our recent financial performance and smart capital deployment decisions will benefit shareowners in the long term. In 2017, we continued to execute a balanced capital deployment strategy:

Repurchased nearly $2.9 billion in Honeywell shares;
Restructured and refinanced over $1.6 billion of our debt;
Announced a 12% increase in our dividend — since 2010, we have increased the dividend rate by 10% or more eight times; and
Deployed approximately $1 billion to capital expenditures and continued efforts to identify acquisitions that meet our disciplined return metrics.

PAY FOR PERFORMANCE

Honeywell Consistently Outperforms Our Peers

In ensuring alignment between pay and performance, the Management Development and Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (“MDCC”) assesses Honeywell’s financial performance against two sets of peer data: 1) a group of 16 companies that we call our “Compensation Peer Group,” and 2) a smaller subset of the Compensation Peer Group we call our “Multi-Industry Peer Group” made up of Emerson Electric (“EMR”), General Electric (“GE”), 3M Corporation (“MMM”), and United Technologies (“UTX”), against whom we frequently compete for investor dollars. Each of these four companies is a multi-industrial company that has broadly overlapping institutional ownership, is covered by the same set of Wall Street research analysts that cover Honeywell, and operates in a similarly diverse set of end markets on a global basis. Seepage 41 for a description of how the MDCC selected the Compensation Peer Group andpage 42 for a description of how the MDCC uses certain non-GAAP financial information for both Honeywell and its peers in making compensation decisions.

2018     |     Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners       |       33

Executive Compensation> Compensation Discussion And Analysis

For both the Compensation Peer Group and Multi-Industry Peer Group, the MDCC considers four primary indicators of relative financial performance: sales growth, earnings per share growth, net income growth, and return on invested capital. The charts below summarize our performance against both the Compensation Peer Group and the Multi-Industry Peer Group.

The MDCC is also mindful of financial metrics used by institutional investors, third-party analysts and the broader financial community to compare Honeywell’s performance against our peers. The following graphs show our performance versus the median of each of the Compensation Peer Group and the Multi-Industry Peer Group for three metrics over a three-year period ending in 2017.

The MDCC also carefully considers several different ratios that are important measures of Honeywell’s earnings performance compared to both the Compensation Peer Group Median and the Multi-Industry Peer Group Median. Shareowners have told us that they regard ROIC as a particularly important metric because it shows how well management is balancing delivery of short-term results against long-term sustainable growth. Honeywell’s three-year ROIC was 16.8%, which significantly outperformed both the Multi-Industry Peer Group Median and the Compensation Peer Group Median.

NOTE: Reconciliation, notes, and definitions of non-GAAP financial measures used in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis section and elsewhere in this proxy statement,Proxy Statement, other than as part of disclosure of target levels, can be found onpage 3038 or in Appendix B.

34       |       A. Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners     |     2018

Executive Compensation> Compensation Discussion And Analysis

Over the last five years, our EPS performance has been particularly impressive because it was accomplished during a period when many companies used share repurchase programs to boost their EPS. As the chart below demonstrates, net income growth significantly lagged EPS growth for the Multi-Industry Peer Group and the Compensation Peer Group, indicating that EPS growth was to some extent achieved by decreasing the number of shares outstanding through share buybacks. Specifically, the chart shows that Honeywell’s EPS compound annual growth rate exceeded each of the Multi-Industry Peer Companies and the median of the Compensation Peer Group over a five-year period even though we repurchased far fewer shares. Moreover, the strong correlation between net income and EPS growth at Honeywell is important because it means that our growth is more reflective of our true operational performance. Also significant is that Honeywell grew EPS faster than the Multi-Industry Peer Group while maintaining balance sheet capacity for future capital deployment.

We Continue To Create Value For Our Shareowners

Another important indicator of performance for the MDCC is our relative TSR performance. The following graph displays our annual and five-year cumulative TSR performance relative to the median of the Compensation Peer Group and the Multi-Industry Peer Group, as well as the S&P 500. Honeywell’s five-year cumulative TSR is more than triple the Multi-Industry Peer Group Median, and more than double the Compensation Peer Group Median.

2018     |     Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners       |       35

Executive Compensation> Compensation Discussion And Analysis

ENGAGEMENT WITH SHAREOWNERS ON COMPENSATION

We routinely engage with our shareowners to better understand their views on our governance and compensation practices. Our Lead Director and MDCC Chair often participate in these engagements. The feedback we received from shareowners enabled the Board to better understand shareowners’ perspectives on our executive compensation programs, which resulted in significant changes to those programs. This led to 93% of shareowners voting in favor of ’Say on Pay’ for 2017.

The table below summarizes the feedback we received from shareowners and the changes we have made:

What We Heard From Some
Shareowners
Design Changes
(for CEO and the entire Leadership Team*)
Change Takes Effect
ICP(AnnualIncentive CompensationPlan)Want better visibility into how financial metrics and discretion factor into determining awards.80% of target ICP awards to be based on performance against pre-established goals for EPS and Free Cash Flow. 20% based on qualitative assessment of individual performance.Completed. In effect for 2016 ICP Awards (paid March 2017).
Prefer resetting baseline to target each year over using the prior year actual award as the baseline.Reset annual baseline award to each leadership team member’s annual target ICP award as a percentage of base pay.Completed. In effect for 2017 ICP Awards.
Growth Plan(multi-year)The 2-year non-overlapping performance cycle viewed as too short, even with the delayed payout feature.

Replace the biennial cash-based Growth Plan with an annual share-based Performance Plan (i.e., PSUs) with 3-year overlapping performance cycles. Plan is 100% formulaic with performance measured against key financial metrics and relative TSR. Reporting full value in year of grant will eliminate lumpy reporting.

With respect to Mr. Cote’s 2016-2017 Growth Plan award, the MDCC retroactively changed the form of payout from all cash to all shares.

Completed. Initial grant of new 3-year PSUs awarded in 2017. Annual grants to be made thereafter.
The whole 2 years of value must be reported in the 2nd year, which leads to lumpy reporting.
Prefer long-term performance awards to be share-based instead of cash.
Desire a relative metric, such as TSR, to be added to the plan.
Form andMix ofLong-Term Incentive(“LTI”) AwardsInvestors prefer heavier weighting in performance-based equity other than stock options.Reduce weighting for stock options to ~25% of target LTI over two annual compensation cycles. Increase weighting for PSUs to 50%+ of target mix. RSUs will represent the remaining 25% of target LTI.Transition commenced in 2017 and will be completed in 2018.
RSUs granted every other July gives impression they are “one off” vs. part of regular program.

All annual LTI awards will be granted at the same time each year, generally in February.

Relative TSR performance requirements added to 100% of the biennial RSU awards made in 2016.

No RSU grants made in 2017. Starting in 2018, annual RSU grants to be made with weighting at ~25% of target LTI.

*Design changes apply to the CEO and all his executive direct reports (i.e., the “Leadership Team”). Mr. Cote was excluded from the LTI design changes in his final year with the Company as Executive Chairman.

36     |     Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners     |     2018

Executive Compensation> Compensation Discussion And Analysis

EVOLUTION OF OUR COMPENSATION PROGRAM AND LINK TO BUSINESS STRATEGY AND PERFORMANCE

Over the period of 2016-2018, our compensation program is evolving from a program weighted more heavily in stock options to a program majority-weighted in Performance Stock Unit (“PSU”) awards, with all LTI grants to be made on an annual basis.

The table below provides an overview of our evolution, and demonstrates the strong link between each of our direct compensation elements and our business strategy and performance.

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION PROGRAM EVOLUTION — 2017 ACTIONS

80% of the Annual Bonus was determined on a formulaic basis; 20% was qualitative
Shifted mix of Leadership Team LTI to be more heavily weighted in PSU awards; lower weight in options
Granted 3-year PSUs under the Performance Plan, which replaced the 2-year cash-based Growth Plan
Added Relative TSR as a metric in the Performance Plan

Timeline for Implementation of Executive Compensation Changes

 

 

   2016  2017  2018 LINK TO STRATEGY &
PERFORMANCE
         
Base Salary Base salaries are determined based on scope of responsibility, years of experience and individual
performance.
 To attract and compensate high-performing and experienced leaders at a competitive level of cash compensation.
         
         
         
         
         
         
Annual
Incentive
Compensation
Program
(“ICP”)
 Cash award; 80% based on formulaic determination against pre-established financial metrics. 20% based on assessment of individual performance. Prior year actual award as baseline 80% based on formulaic determination against pre-established financial metrics. 20% based on assessment of individual performance.

Reset annual baseline award to their annual target ICP as a percentage of base pay.
 To motivate and reward executives for achieving annual corporate, SBG and functional goals in key areas of financial and operational performance.
         
         
         
         
         
Long Term
Incentive
Compensation
(“LTI”)*
 

 

Stock Options:

•   CEO: 66% of LTI

•   Other NEOs: 48% of LTI

 

 

 

 

 

 

Biennial Growth Plan Units:

•   CEO: 34% of LTI

•   Other NEOs: 24% of LTI

 

 

 

 

 

Performance Restricted Stock Units:

•   CEO: None

•   Other NEOs: 28% of LTI

•   3-Year Relative TSR

 

 

Stock Options:

•   Reduce weighting:

- CEO: 31% of LTI

- Other NEOs: 30% of LTI

 

 

 

 

3-Year Performance Plan:

•   Stock-based PSUs

•   Added relative TSR along with financial metrics

•   Ramp up weighting:

- CEO: 45% of LTI

- Other NEOs: 35% of LTI

 

 

 

 

 

Restricted Stock Units:

•   None issued

 

2017 annualized value of 2016 biennial Growth Plan and Performance RSU grants:

-   CEO: 24% of LTI

-   Other NEOs: 35% of LTI

 

 

Stock Options:

•   CEO and the whole Leadership Team: ~ 25% of annual LTI

 

 

 

  

3-Year Performance Plan

•   Stock-based PSUs

•   Relative TSR along with
financial metrics

•   CEO and the whole
Leadership Team: ~ 50%
of annual LTI

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Restricted Stock Units:

•   CEO and the whole
Leadership Team: ~ 25%
of annual LTI

 

 

Directly aligns the interest of our executives with shareowners. Options only have value for executives if the operating performance results in stock price appreciation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Focuses executives on the achievement of specific long-term financial performance goals directly aligned with our operating and strategic plans.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Encourages key executive retention.

*References to “CEO” and “Other NEOs” based on executive in the position as of December 31 for the year noted. For 2017 & 2018, “Other NEOs” excludes Mr. Cote in his interim role of Executive Chairman of the Board. 2016 and 2017 LTI weighting from MDCC perspective: annualizes 2016 biennial grants of Performance RSUs and Growth Plan units, which covered a 2-year period. Because of the shift to annual equity LTI grants from this point forward, 2017 is the last year this annualization treatment is required.

2018     |     Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners     |     37

Executive Compensation> Compensation Discussion And Analysis

CEO SUCCESSION

On March 31, 2017, Mr. Darius Adamczyk succeeded Mr. David Cote as the Company’s President and Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”). Mr. Cote retained the position of Executive Chairman of the Board, which shareowners approved through April 2018.

The MDCC approved the following compensation arrangement for Mr. Adamczyk upon his promotion to CEO:

An initial base salary of $1,500,000.

LOGO

 
A target annual incentive compensation opportunity of 175% of base salary.

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019

 

39



An initial LTI award with a target value of $12,000,000.
06  |  
Beginning in 2018, no less than 50% of his target annual LTI value will be in the form of Performance Stock Units.
Participation in the Severance Plan for Designated Officers, which would provide 36 months of base salary continuation and target bonus if his employment is involuntarily terminated for a reason other than cause.

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION

AND ANALYSIS

 

Mr. Adamczyk did not enter intoAs laid out during our 2017 Investor Conference, below are our long-term financial commitments. Since then, we’ve continued to foster a formal employment contractculture within Honeywell of doing what we say we will do, or as we call it, the “say/do ratio.” In 2018, we over-delivered on these financial commitments to shareowners and continued to make investments in connection with his promotion to CEO.the businesses through research and development, capital expenditures, and M&A.

 

    

CEO Priority

 

 

Metric

 

 

Long-Term

Commitment

 

 

2018 Result

 

 1 

 

  

 

Accelerate    

Organic Growth    

 

Organic sales

growth

 

Low-to-mid

single digit

 

6%

 2 

 

  

 

Expand Margins /    

Improve Cash    

Conversion    

 

 

 

 

 

Basis points (bps)

expansion

 

 

 

 

30 - 50 bps

 

 

 

60 bps

 

 

 

 

 

Adjusted FCF

conversion

 

 

 

 

~100%

 

 

 

100%

 

 3 

 

  

 

Become a    

Software-    

Industrial    

Company    

 

 

 

Connected software

sales growth

 ~20% 

14%

 

 

 

 4 

  

 

 

 

More Aggressive    

Capital    

Deployment    

 

 

 

Dividend growth in line with EPS growth

Disciplined M&A

Share repurchases from residual capacity

High ROI capital expenditures

 

 $7.6B

SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF 2017 COMPENSATION DECISIONS FOR NEOS

The table below summarizes the 2017 compensation actions, which reflect the changes to the compensation program described aboveReconciliation, notes, and are consistent with our commitment to align pay with company performance anddefinitions of non-GAAP financial measures used in the interests of our shareowners. Details about the compensation decisions made in 2017 are more fully discussed later in this Compensation Discussion and Analysis section and elsewhere in this Proxy Statement, other than as part of disclosure of target levels, can be found on page 38 or “CD&A.”in Appendix A.

LOGO  STRATEGICALLY DEPLOYED CAPITAL WHILE MAINTAINING BALANCE SHEET FLEXIBILITY

Our recent financial performance and smart capital deployment decisions will benefit shareowners in the long term. Given the market environment in 2018, we continued to execute a balanced capital deployment strategy consisting of the following actions:

Announced a 10% dividend increase, our ninth consecutive double-digit increase since 2010, while completing two spins that reduced sales by nearly 20%;

Repurchased $4.0 billion in Honeywell shares, reducing the weighted average share count by over 2%;

Deployed more than $0.8 billion to high ROI capital expenditures;

Deployed over $0.5 billion to the Transnorm and Ortloff Engineers, Ltd. acquisitions; and

Paid down over $1.5 billion of long-term and net short-term debt.

LOGO

 

Other NEOs
Pay ElementCEO (Mr. Adamczyk)(excluding CEO & Chairman)Comments
Base SalaryBase salary was increased to $1,500,000 as a result of his promotion to CEO in April 2017.

Merit increases averaging 4.7% were approved.

Base increases to Messrs. Mahoney and Szlosek were their first increases since March 2015.40

 

  Consistent with Mr. Cote’s 2016 CEO Continuity Agreement, his base salary was reduced from $1.89M to $500,000, when he stepped down as CEO and continued as Executive Chairman of the Board.LOGO

  Mr. Gautam is a first-year NEO.

Annual IncentiveCompensationProgram (“ICP”) 

ICP Target as CEO set at 175% of base salary.

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019

Earned award paid at 131% of target, reflecting strong performance for his first year as CEO.

 

 Average earned award paid at 132% of individual target awards.


06  |  

  80% of payout based on company performance against the two pre-established ICP metrics of EPS and Free Cash Flow. For Messrs. Mahoney and Gautam, performance against SBG-level goals of Net Income and Free Cash Flow count toward half of their calculated award.

 

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION  20% of payouts were determined based on the MDCC’s qualitative assessment of individual performance and accomplishments (pages 46-48).

AND ANALYSIS  As Executive Chairman, Mr. Cote’s 2017 ICP award was paid at 50% of his prior year actual ICP award.

Stock Options

– annual

Option grant represented initial grant as CEO.

Represented 31% of annualized LTI for 2017.

Option grant sizes reduced from 2016 consistent with planned changes to the compensation program.

In the aggregate, represented 30% of annualized LTI for 2017.

  Over 2017 and 2018, the MDCC will be lowering the target LTI weighting in stock options to ~25% of total LTI value.

  Final stock option grant was made to Mr. Cote as CEO prior to transitioning to the Executive Chairman role. Reflects potential impact of his leadership on future stock appreciation. No other equity was granted to Mr. Cote in 2017.

Performance PlanStock Units (PSUs) – annual

Initial annual grant made under the 2017-2019 Performance Plan.

Represented 45% of annualized LTI for 2017.

Initial annual grant made under the 2017-2019 Performance Plan.

Represented 35% of annualized LTI for 2017.

  New three-year stock-based PSU Plan introduced in 2017 as part of compensation program changes. Will represent 50% of target LTI beginning in 2018.

  Earned awards will be determined at the end of the three-year performance period based on four equally weighted metrics: total revenue, average return on investment (“ROI”), average segment margin rate and total shareowner return relative to the Compensation Peer Group.

38     |     Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners     |     2018

Executive Compensation> Compensation Discussion And Analysis

Pay ElementCEO (Mr. Adamczyk)Other NEOs
(excluding CEO & Chairman)
Comments
Growth Plan Units
(GPUs)– biennial

No award issued in 2017.

2016 grant earned at 61% of target for last biennial performance cycle.

Represented 10% of annualized LTI for 2017.

No awards issued in 2017.

2016 grants earned at 62% of target, on average, for last biennial performance cycle.

Represented 11% of annualized LTI for 2017.

  2016 was the last year that biennial cash-based GPU awards were made. No Growth Plan grant was made in 2017, but MDCC attributed half the 2016 award value to 2017. The Growth Plan has now been replaced by the stock-based PSU Plan.

  Earned awards under the 2016-2017 Growth Plan were determined based on performance against three pre-established financial targets measured over the two-year performance cycle: total revenue, return on investment (“ROI”) expansion and segment margin expansion.

PerformanceRestricted StockUnits (RSUs) – biennial

No award issued in 2017.

Annualized value of 2016 biennial grant represented 14% of annualized LTI for 2016.

No awards issued in 2017.

Average annualized value of 2016 biennial grants represented 24% of annualized LTI for 2017.

  2016 was the last year of biennial RSU grants. No RSUs were granted in 2017, but MDCC attributed half the 2016 award value to 2017. Beginning in 2018, time-based RSUs will be granted annually as part of the regular LTI mix.

  100% of the 2016 Performance RSUs will be earned based on cumulative Total Shareowner Return (“TSR”) relative to the Compensation Peer Group performance over a 3-year period, followed by an extended time-vesting period.

 

2017 Compensation Summary:

Total Annual Direct Compensation For Each Named Executive Officer (NEOs)

The following table reflects 2017 annualized compensation amounts earned by the NEOs from the perspective of the MDCC*.

          2017-2019 2016 Biennial-   Total Annual
    Base Annual Stock Performance Performance 2016-2017 Direct
NEO Position Salary Bonus Options Plan-PSUs(A) RSUs(B) Growth Plan(C) Compensation
Darius Adamczyk President & CEO $1,414,615 $3,275,000 $3,596,400 $5,254,000 $1,671,875 $1,224,000 $16,435,890
Thomas A. Szlosek SVP - Chief Financial Officer $865,039 $1,100,000 $1,798,200 $2,101,600 $1,337,500 $687,500 $7,889,839
Timothy O. Mahoney Aerospace - President & CEO $963,615 $1,540,000 $2,064,600 $2,232,950 $2,006,250 $450,000 $9,257,415
Krishna Mikkilineni SVP- Engineering, Ops and IT $785,769 $915,000 $1,798,200 $1,970,250 $1,471,250 $550,000 $7,490,469
Rajeev Gautam PMT - President & CEO $717,885 $1,040,000 $1,165,500 $1,576,200 $668,750 $772,500 $5,940,835
David M. Cote(D) Executive Chairman & Former CEO $900,962 $3,420,000 $9,990,000 $0 $0 $2,612,500 $16,923,462

*Table reflects the view of the MDCC by annualizing 2016 biennial awards over a 2-year period (half of the award was attributed to 2016 and half to 2017), which differs from how amounts are reported on the SEC Summary Compensation Table. This is the last year reporting on this basis with normalizaton in 2018 as part of the changes to the executive compensation program.
(A)Grant date value of the first annual award of 3-year Performance Stock Units (PSUs).
(B)Reflects 2017 portion of the 2016 biennial Performance-based RSU grant with 100% of payout tied to Honeywell’s relative TSR performance against Compensation Peer Group over 3-years, followed by longer-term vesting period. Last such biennial RSU grant prior to compensation program changes.
(C)Annualized amount earned from the 2016 biennial Growth Plan grant for the 2016-2017 performance cycle. Portion attributable to 2017. Plan discontinued after this payout.
(D)Mr. Cote not included in broader compensation program changes for last full year of employment as Executive Chairman. The 2017 stock option grant to Mr. Cote, was made while in the CEO role and represented his last LTl grant from Honeywell. No other LTl was granted to Mr. Cote in 2017. Mr. Cote will receive no other compensation for the five-year consulting services arrangement included in his June 2016 CEO Continuity Agreement, which will begin when he leaves the Board in April of 2018. Earned Growth Plan award to be settled in stock, pursuant to 2016 MDCC decision to reduce value of his compensation paid in cash in response to shareowner feedback.

2018     |     Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners     |     39

Executive Compensation> Compensation Discussion And Analysis

OUR COMPENSATION PHILOSOPHY & APPROACH

PROGRAM

I  PHILOSOPHY AND APPROACH

Our executive compensation program creates long-term shareowner value through four key objectives:

 

1.LOGO

Attract and Retain World-Class Leadership Talentwith the abilityskills and experience necessary to develop and execute business strategies;strategies, drive superior financial results;results, and nimbly adapt and react to constantly evolving end market conditions in an enterprise with our scale, breadth, complexity, and global footprint;

LOGO
2.

Emphasize Variable, At-Risk Compensationwith an appropriate balance of near-term and long-term objectives that align executive and shareowner interests;

LOGO
3.

Pay for Superior Results and Sustainable Growthby rewarding and differentiating among executives based on the achievement of enterprise, business unit, and individual objectives as well as efforts to advance Honeywell’s long-term growth initiatives; and

LOGO
4.

Manage Risk throughThrough Oversight and Compensation Program DesignfeaturesFeatures and practicesPractices that balance short-term and long-term incentives, are not overly leveraged, and cap maximum payments.

The key factors that shape the MDCC’s overall assessment of performance and appropriate levels of compensation include (in no particular order):

Operational and financial performance — for the entire corporation and the relevant business group;

Aggressiveness of each executive’s financial goals and targets compared to peers as well as the business/macroeconomic conditions in which our businesses operate;

Each executive’s long-term leadership potential and associated retention risk;

Execution against strategic initiatives and the impact of investments that will benefit financial performance in future years;

The senior executive succession plan;

Stock price performance and total shareowner return;

Trends and best practices in executive compensation; and

Peer group comparisons, including performance, pay levels, and related practices.

The MDCC reviews these factors over various time frames during the year to ensure a strong linkage between pay and performance. In addition, the MDCC reviews each NEO’s four-year compensation history in total and each element of total annual direct compensation. The MDCC also reviews projected benefit payments under Honeywell’s retirement and deferred compensation plans, and any previously granted awards or grants. This enables the MDCC to understand how each element of compensation interacts with the other elements and to see how current compensation decisions may affect future wealth accumulation and executive retention.

Some of the key factors that shape the MDCC’s overall assessment of performance and appropriate levels of compensation include (in no particular order):

Operational and financial performance — for the entire corporation and the relevant business group;
Aggressiveness of each executive’s financial goals and targets compared to peers as well as the business/macroeconomic conditions in which our businesses operate;
Each executive’s long-term leadership potential and associated retention risk;
The extent which each executive made decisions or took actions that adversely impacted the current year’s financial performance but represented an investment that will benefit financial performance in future years;
The senior executive succession plan;
Stock price performance and total shareowner return;
Trends and best practices in executive compensation; and
Peer group comparisons, including performance, pay levels and related practices.

The MDCC reviews these factors over various time frames during the year to ensure a strong linkage between pay and performance.

Honeywell’s senior executives are recognized as industry leaders with backgrounds, depth of experience, and management skills that are highly attractive to competitors. The MDCC prefers to address critical retention and succession risks through the existing compensation program. It reserves the right, if deemed necessary, to take appropriate compensation actions that it believes are in the best interest of the Company and its shareowners to strengthen the succession plan and guard against the loss of key talent, especially during critical transition periods.

 

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019

41



4006  |       |        Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners     |     2018

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION

AND ANALYSIS

Executive Compensation> Compensation Discussion And Analysis

 

I  PROGRAM DESIGN AND LINK TO BUSINESS STRATEGY AND PERFORMANCE

In 2018, the evolutionary changes in our compensation program, which began in 2016, were fully implemented. The following table provides an overview of our executive compensation program and demonstrates the strong link between each of our direct compensation elements and our business strategy and performance.

Pay Element

Description

Link to Strategy and Performance

Base Salary

 Base salaries are determined based on scope of responsibility, years of experience, and individual performance.

  To attract and compensate high-performing and experienced leaders at a competitive level of cash compensation.

Annual Incentive Compensation Plan (ICP)

 80% based on formulaic determination against pre-established financial metrics. 20% based on assessment of individual performance.

  To motivate and reward executives for achieving annual corporate, business, and functional goals in key areas of financial and operational performance.

Long-Term Incentive Compensation (LTI)

 Three-Year Performance Plan:

 CEO and the whole Leadership Team*: ~ 50% of annual LTI

 Stock-based PSUs

 Relative TSR along with key financial metrics

  Focuses executives on the achievement of specific long-term financial performance goals directly aligned with our operating and strategic plans. TSR portion pays based on three-year return from stock price appreciation and dividends vs. peers.

 Stock Options:

 CEO and the whole Leadership Team*: ~ 25% of annual LTI

  Directly aligns the interest of our executives with shareowners. Options only have value for executives if operating performance results in stock price appreciation.

 Restricted Stock Units:

 CEO and the whole Leadership Team*: ~ 25% of annual LTI

  Strengthens key executive retention over relevant time periods to ensure consistency and execution of long-term strategies.

* Leadership Team refers to all direct CEO staff officers at the time annual LTI awards were made in 2018. The mix of LTI awards to Mr. Gregory P. Lewis differed from those of the Leadership Team in 2018 as he was not a member of the Leadership Team at the time 2018 annual LTI awards were made. His future LTI awards will be allocated between elements based on the same mix that applies to the other Leadership Team members.

IHOW COMPENSATION DECISIONS ARE MADE

Decision making over executive compensation rests with the MDCC, which holds six regularly scheduled meetings each year. Each meeting includes an executive session comprised solely of independent directors, and those meetings are attended by the MDCC’s independent compensation consultant. Meeting agendas contain items proposed by either management or the MDCC members.

In carrying out its responsibilities, the MDCC balances a number of important considerations, including:

 

The importance of aligning pay with Company and individual performance;
The need to attract, retain and reward executives with a proven track record of delivering consistent financial results and driving “seed-planting” initiatives that will create sustainable long-term shareowner value;
The complex multi-industry and global nature of our businesses and the importance of growth outside of the United States for future success;
The positioning of pay relative to the competitive market; and
The importance of maintaining and executing on a thorough and rigorous succession planning process.

The importance of aligning pay with Company and individual performance;

 

The need to attract, retain, and reward executives with a proven track record of delivering consistent financial results and driving “seed-planting” initiatives that will create sustainable long-term shareowner value;

The complex multi-industry and global nature of our businesses and the importance of growth outside of the United States for future success;

The positioning of pay relative to the competitive market; and

The importance of maintaining and executing on a thorough and rigorous succession planning process.

To create long-term shareowner value, the MDCC believes that Honeywell’s compensation programs must be financially competitive and structured to drive sustained performance against our strategic and financial goals and objectives. The MDCC is focused on maintaining a compensation program for Honeywell that emphasizes variable, at-risk compensation and has an appropriate balance of near-term and long-term objectives.

42

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019



06  |

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION

AND ANALYSIS

I  ENGAGEMENT WITH SHAREOWNERS ON COMPENSATION

The MDCC also considers shareowner feedback and the results of the annual advisory vote on executive compensation in making determinations about the structure of Honeywell’s pay program.

program, or whether any changes to the program should be considered. We routinely engage with our shareowners to better understand their views on our governance and compensation practices. Our Lead Director and MDCC Chair often participate in these engagements. The feedback we received from shareowners enabled the Board to better understand shareowners’ perspectives on our executive compensation programs, which resulted in significant changes to our programs that have been phased in over the last two years and fully implemented in 2018. These changes led to over 92% of our shareowners voting in favor of ’Say on Pay’ in 2017 and 2018. In 2018, we extended meeting invitations to 54 of our shareowners to discuss Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) matters, including our executive compensation program, representing 50% of our common shares outstanding. Our invitation was accepted by 18 different shareowners (representing 29% of our common shares outstanding), and 24 separate meetings were held, many of which included the participation of our Lead Director. No additional executive compensation program modifications were made in 2018 as a result of these meetings.

IOUR COMPETITIVE MARKET —  COMPENSATION PEER GROUP

TheTo ensure appropriate levels of executive officer compensation, and the alignment of pay and performance, the MDCC believes it is important to understand how Honeywell compares to other relevant companies. As such, the relevant market forMDCC reviews executive talent to ensureofficer compensation, and assesses Honeywell’s financial performance, against two sets of peer data: 1) a group of 16 companies that Honeywell’s executive compensation program supports the attractionwe call our “Compensation Peer Group,” and retention2) a smaller subset of highly-qualified leaders. Our independent compensation consultant compiles compensation data on the Compensation Peer Group that we call our “Multi-Industry Peer Group.”

Multi-Industry Peer Group. This peer group is made up of Emerson Electric Co. (EMR), General Electric Company (GE), 3M Company (MMM), and presents this data toUnited Technologies Corporation (UTX), companies against whom we frequently compete for investor dollars. Each of these four companies is a multi-industrial company that has broadly overlapping institutional ownership, is covered by the MDCCsame set of Wall Street research analysts that cover Honeywell, and operate in a similarly diverse set of end markets on an annuala global basis.

This review includes a comparison of each element of compensation for Honeywell’s executive officers (includingCompensation Peer Group. The companies included in the NEOs) with that of comparable positions in eachbroader Compensation Peer Group company. The intent is to provideare reviewed by the MDCC with an understanding of Honeywell’s pay positioning relative to the competitive marketplace.

The MDCC also reviews the Compensation Peer Group on an annual basis with a focus on companies that have one or more of the following attributes:

 

Business operations in the industries and markets in which Honeywell participates;
Similar revenue and/or market capitalization;
Similar breadth of portfolio and complexity;
Global scope of operations and/or diversified product lines; and

Business operations in the industries and markets in which Honeywell participates;

Similar revenue and/or market capitalization;

Similar breadth of portfolio and complexity;

Global scope of operations and/or diversified product lines; and

Demonstrated competitor for executive talent.

No changes were made to the Multi-Industry Peer Group or to the Compensation Peer Group companies in 2018.

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019

43



06  |

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION

AND ANALYSIS

 

The following provides a view of the multi-industry profile of Honeywell’s businesses in 2017:

In 2016, the MDCC made changes totable lists relevant comparative information for the Compensation Peer Group to better reflect Honeywell’s evolving portfolio of businesses. This included adding Schlumberger Limitedcompanies for 2018:

            
  

Mkt Cap ($M)

(12/31/2018)

  Total Assets ($M)  Sales ($M)  # Employees           

Total Shareholder Return (12/31/2018)

 

    

Company Name

          1 Year  3 Years  5 Years  10 Years    
            
 

Honeywell International Inc.

 

  $  97,807   $  57,773   $  41,802   114,000      -8  43  68  437 
 

Multi-Industry Peer Group (4)

            
 

3M Company

 

 

$110,949

 

 

 

$  36,500

 

 

 

$  32,765

 

 

 

93,516

 

    

 

-17

 

 

36

 

 

54

 

 

329

 
                                           
 

Emerson Electric Co.

 

 

$  37,413

 

 

 

$  20,390

 

 

 

$  17,408

 

 

 

87,500

 

    

 

-12

 

 

38

 

 

0

 

 

122

 
                                           
 

General Electric Company

 

 

$  65,845

 

 

 

$309,129

 

 

 

$121,615

 

 

 

283,000

 

    

 

-55

 

 

-73

 

 

-68

 

 

-34

 
                                           
 

United Technologies Corporation

 

 

$  91,933

 

 

 

$134,211

 

 

 

$  66,501

 

 

 

240,200

 

    

 

-15

 

 

19

 

 

5

 

 

153

 
                                           
 

Honeywell Percentile Rank

 

 

77

 

 

41

 

 

42

 

 

38

    

 

100

 

 

100

 

 

100

 

 

100

 
                                           
 

Honeywell TSR Rank Order

 

        

 

1

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

1

 

 
 

Other Compensation Peers (12)

            
 

The Boeing Company

 

 

$183,143

 

 

 

$117,359

 

 

 

$101,127

 

 

 

153,000

 

    

 

12

 

 

142

 

 

169

 

 

879

 
                                           
 

Caterpillar Inc.

 

 

$  74,985

 

 

 

$  78,509

 

 

 

$  54,722

 

 

 

104,000

 

    

 

-18

 

 

105

 

 

63

 

 

280

 
                                           
 

Deere and Company

 

 

$  47,521

 

 

 

$  70,108

 

 

 

$  37,318

 

 

 

74,413

 

    

 

-3

 

 

109

 

 

84

 

 

391

 
                                           
 

Eaton Corporation plc

 

 

$  29,757

 

 

 

$  31,092

 

 

 

$  21,609

 

 

 

99,000

 

    

 

-10

 

 

46

 

 

6

 

 

281

 
                                           
 

General Dynamics Corporation

 

 

$  46,558

 

 

 

$  45,408

 

 

 

$  36,193

 

 

 

105,600

 

    

 

-21

 

 

21

 

 

81

 

 

245

 
                                           
 

Illinois Tool Works Inc.

 

 

$  42,036

 

 

 

$  14,870

 

 

 

$  14,768

 

 

 

48,000

 

    

 

-22

 

 

46

 

 

68

 

 

362

 
                                           
 

Ingersoll-Rand Plc

 

 

$  22,411

 

 

 

$  17,915

 

 

 

$  15,668

 

 

 

49,000

 

    

 

4

 

 

75

 

 

63

 

 

680

 
                                           
 

Johnson Controls International plc

 

 

$  27,398

 

 

 

$  48,797

 

 

 

$  31,400

 

 

 

122,000

 

    

 

-20

 

 

-9

 

 

-27

 

 

131

 
                                           
 

Lockheed Martin Corporation

 

 

$  74,474

 

 

 

$  44,876

 

 

 

$  53,762

 

 

 

105,000

 

    

 

-16

 

 

30

 

 

103

 

 

337

 
                                           
 

Phillips 66

 

 

$  39,726

 

 

 

$  54,302

 

 

 

$111,461

 

 

 

14,200

 

    

 

-12

 

 

16

 

 

29

 

 

0

 
                                           
 

Raytheon Company

 

 

$  43,640

 

 

 

$  31,864

 

 

 

$  27,058

 

 

 

67,000

 

    

 

-17

 

 

31

 

 

88

 

 

293

 
                                           
 

Schlumberger Limited

 

 

 

$  49,964

 

 

 

$  70,507

 

 

 

$  32,815

 

 

 

100,000

 

    

 

-45

 

 

-44

 

 

-54

 

 

4

 
 

All Compensation Peers (16)

            
 

Honeywell Percentile Rank

  89  61  62  77     82  64  67  88 
                                           
 

Honeywell TSR Rank Order

         4   7   6   3  

Source: S&P Capital IQ

TSR is calculated by the growth in capital from purchasing a share in the company and Phillips 66 to better reflect Honeywell’s significant positionassuming the dividends and share distributions received from any spins are reinvested in oil and gas industry through its UOP and HPS strategic business units.the applicable company at the time they are paid.

 

2018

44

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of ShareownersStatement  |  2019

       |       41



06  |

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION

AND ANALYSIS

Executive Compensation> Compensation Discussion And Analysis

 

In 2017,I  PERFORMANCE RELATIVE TO PEERS

2018 Performance

The following graphs show our performance versus the MDCC made one adjustment to the Compensation Peer Group by removing E.I Dupont de Nemours and Dow Chemical as a resultmedian of their planned merger and articulated plan to then split into three separate companies. This transformational activity would make financial comparisons difficult and less comparable during their transitions. It should also be noted that in comparing the financial performanceeach of Honeywell to both the Compensation Peer Group and the Multi-Industry Peer Group for three key metrics in 2018. Specifically, we’ve selected adjusted earnings per share and adjusted free cash flow growth because those are the MDCC uses certain non-GAAP financial information that both Honeywellprimary measures used in our annual incentive plan (ICP). Adjusted earnings per share growth for the Compensation Peer Group was higher than Honeywell’s in 2018 predominately due to performance in the Aerospace, Defense, and each peer company utilizesMachinery sectors. Honeywell’s adjusted EPS growth in its financial disclosure2018 also was impacted by dilution from the spins of Garrett Motion Inc. (Garrett) and investor presentations.Resideo Technologies, Inc. (Resideo) in September and October of 2018, respectively. Excluding the after-tax segment profit contribution from Garrett in the fourth quarter of 2017 and Resideo in November and December 2017, net of spin indemnification impacts, Honeywell’s adjusted EPS growth would have been approximately 15.1% in 2018.

 

COMPENSATION PEER GROUP - 2017
                       
Company Name Mkt Cap
(Current $M)
 Total Assets
($M)
 Revenue ($M) # Employees Total Shareholder Return (12/31/2017)
     1 Year 3 Years 5 Years 10 Years
HONEYWELL INTL INC $115,159  $59,387  $40,534  131,000* 35% 64% 170% 220%
Multi-Industry Peer Group                      
3M CO $140,188  $37,987  $31,657  91,536 35% 55% 186% 262%
EMERSON ELECTRIC CO $44,506  $19,589  $15,264  76,500 29% 25% 54% 68%
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO $151,328  $377,945  $122,092  313,000 -43% -24% -2% -32%
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES $101,874  $96,920  $59,837  205,000 19% 19% 75% 112%
Honeywell Percentile Rank  45%   45%   44%  45% 100% 100% 95% 91%
Honeywell Rank Order  3   3   3  3 1 1 2 2
Other Comp Peers                      
BOEING CO $175,642  $92,333  $93,392  140,800 95% 147% 345% 339%
CATERPILLAR INC $93,750  $76,962  $45,462  98,400 75% 92% 105% 191%
DEERE & CO $50,593  $65,786  $29,738  60,500 55% 91% 105% 112%
EATON CORP PLC $34,812  $32,600  $20,404  96,000 22% 29% 71% 124%
GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP $60,747  $35,046  $30,973  98,600 20% 57% 225% 189%
ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC $57,163  $16,780  $14,314  50,000 39% 88% 205% 299%
INGERSOLL-RAND PLC $22,286  $18,173  $14,198  46,000 21% 49% 155% 186%
JOHNSON CONTROLS $35,268  $51,884  $30,172  121,000 -5% 0% 55% 160%
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP $92,056  $46,521  $51,048  100,000 32% 81% 307% 325%
PHILLIPS 66 $51,739  $54,371  $104,622  14,600 21% 54% 118% N/A
RAYTHEON CO $54,305  $30,860  $25,348  64,000 34% 86% 267% 304%
SCHLUMBERGER LTD $93,353  $71,987  $30,440  115,000 -17% -15% 9% -18%
                       
Honeywell Percentile Rank  93%   68%   70%  96% 65% 48% 57% 63%
Honeywell Rank Order  2   5   5  2 5 7 6 5
                       
ALL COMPENSATION PEERS                      
Honeywell Percentile Rank  82%   63%   64%  83% 74% 62% 63% 67%
Honeywell Rank Order  4   7   7  4 5 7 7 6

*Excludes 12,000 government contracted employees.LOGO

 

Note: In August 2016, MSCI

Source: S&P Capital IQ

15.1% adjusted EPS V% is calculated by comparing our 2018 adjusted earnings per share against our adjusted 2017 earnings per share after removing the spin segment profit contribution from Garrett in the fourth quarter of 2017 and the Resideo segment profit contribution in November and December 2017, net of spin indemnification impacts, at a tax rate of 17.2% and ending weighted average share count for 2017 of 772 million (impact of $0.19).

Three-Year Cumulative Growth (2016 – 2018)

The MDCC also reviews Honeywell’s performance relative to the Compensation Peer Group and Multi-Industry Peer Group over multi-year time periods. The following graphs show our performance versus the median of each of the Compensation Peer Group and the Multi-Industry Peer Group for three key metrics over the three-year period ending in 2018 that the MDCC reviewed. Three-year reported sales growth and adjusted EPS growth for the Compensation Peer Group was high driven by 2018 performance of companies focused primarily in the Aerospace, Defense, and Machinery sectors. Likewise, Honeywell’s Aerospace segment grew sales 9% organically in 2018, with our Defense and Space sales growing 15%.

LOGO

Source: S&P Global changedCapital IQ

TSR is calculated by the growth in capital from purchasing a share in the company and assuming the dividends and share distributions received from any spins are reinvested in the applicable company at the time they are paid.

Reconciliation, notes, and definitions of non-GAAP financial measures used in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis section and elsewhere in this Proxy Statement, other than as part of disclosure of target levels, can be found on page 38 or in Appendix A.

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019

45



06  |

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION

AND ANALYSIS

Three-Year Average Return (2016 – 2018)

The MDCC also carefully considers several different ratios that are important measures of Honeywell’s sub-industry GICs code from “Aerospace & Defense”earnings performance compared to “Industrial Conglomerates” to better reflectboth the Company’s more diversified setCompensation Peer Group Median and the Multi-Industry Peer Group Median. Shareowners have told us that they regard ROIC as a particularly important metric because it shows how well management is balancing delivery of businesses with activities in multiple sectors.short-term results against long-term sustainable growth. Honeywell’s three-year average ROIC was 17.2%, which significantly outperformed both the Multi-Industry Peer Group Median and the Compensation Peer Group Median.

LOGO

Source: S&P Capital IQ

Cumulative Total Shareowner Return (TSR)

LOGO

 

42       |        Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners     |     2018
 

Total Shareowner Return Percentile Rank Versus Peers

One-Year

Three-Year

Five-Year

Ten-Year

Multi-Industry Peers = 100th Percentile

Multi-Industry Peers = 100th Percentile

Multi-Industry Peers = 100th Percentile

Multi-Industry Peers = 100th Percentile

Compensation Peers = 82nd Percentile

Compensation Peers = 64th Percentile

Compensation Peers = 67th Percentile

Compensation Peers = 88th Percentile

Source: S&P Capital IQ

TSR is calculated by the growth in capital from purchasing a share in a company and assuming the dividends and share distributions received from any spins are reinvested in the applicable company at the time they are paid.

46

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019



Table of Contents
06  |

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION

AND ANALYSIS

Executive Compensation> Compensation Discussion And Analysis

 

2018 COMPENSATION PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONDECISIONS

The table below summarizes the 2018 compensation actions that are consistent with our commitment to align pay with Company performance and the interests of our shareowners. Details about the compensation decisions made in 2018 are more fully discussed later in this Compensation Discussion and Analysis.

Pay ElementCEO (Mr. Adamczyk)Other NEOsComments
LOGOLOGO

Base Salary

  Base salary was increased to $1,600,000 (up 6.67%).

  Merit increases averaged 2.6%.

  Mr. Lewis received a promotional base salary increase of 36% when he became CFO in August of 2018.

 Messrs. Lewis and James are first-year NEOs.

LOGO

Annual Incentive Compensation Plan (ICP)

  ICP Target: 175% of base salary.

  Earned award paid at 149% of target, reflecting application of the ICP formula and strong 2018 performance.

  ICP Target: 115% of base salary for Mr. Mahoney; 100% for other NEOs.

  Average earned award paid to other NEOs in place at year-end was 141% of individual target awards.

  Mr. Szlosek was not paid an ICP award for 2018 due to his retirement.

 80% of payout based on Company performance against the two pre-established ICP metrics of adjusted EPS and adjusted free cash flow. For Mr. Mahoney, performance against Aerospace net income and adjusted free cash flow goals counted toward half of his calculated award.

 20% of payouts were determined based on the MDCC’s qualitative assessment of individual performance and accomplishments discussed on pages 52-55.

LOGO

Performance Plan Units

– annual grant

  Performance Stock Units (PSUs) represented 50% of 2018 annual LTI.

  PSUs represented 50% of 2018 annual LTI for other NEOs in position at the time of the annual LTI grant in February 2018.

  For Mr. Lewis, three-year performance cash units were awarded, which represented 31% of his 2018 annual LTI.

 PSU earned awards will be determined at the end of the three-year performance period based on four equally weighted metrics: total revenue, average return on investment (ROI), average segment margin rate and total shareowner return (TSR) relative to the Compensation Peer Group.

 Difference in weighting and form for Mr. Lewis was due to his award being made prior to him becoming an officer of the Company. His award will be determined at the end of the three-year performance period based on the same three financial metrics and goals that apply to the other NEOs, but without the TSR metric.

Stock Options

– annual grant

 Represented 25% of 2018 annual LTI.

  Represented 25% of 2018 annual LTI for other NEOs in position at the time of the annual LTI grant in February 2018.

  For Mr. Lewis, represented 35% of his 2018 annual LTI.

 2018 stock option grants were issued with a strike price of $155.39.

 Difference in weighting for Mr. Lewis due to award being made prior to him becoming an officer of the Company.

Restricted Stock Units (RSUs)

– annual grant

 Represented 25% of 2018 annual LTI.

  Represented 25% of 2018 annual LTI for other NEOs in position at the time of the annual LTI grant in February 2018.

  For Mr. Lewis, represented 33% of his 2018 annual LTI.

 RSUs issued to the CEO and Other NEOs in position at the time of the annual LTI grant vest over six years.

 RSUs issued to Mr. Lewis prior to him becoming an officer will vest three years from the grant date.

 Difference in weighting and vesting period for Mr. Lewis due to award being made prior to him becoming an officer of the Company.

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019

47



06  |

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION

AND ANALYSIS

 

I  2018 TOTAL ANNUAL DIRECT COMPENSATION FOR EACH NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICER (NEO)

The table below reflects each of the pay elements that the MDCC regularly considers as part of its decision-making process. This table does not replace the Summary Compensation Table shown on page 64, as required by the SEC.

                            

NEO

  Position Base
Salary
  Annual
Incentive
Plan (ICP)(1)
  2018-2020
Performance
Plan Units(2)
  Stock
Options(3)
  Restricted
Stock
Units(4)
  Total Annual
Direct
Compensation
 
                            

Darius Adamczyk

  

Chairman and CEO

 

$

1,571,154

 

 

 

$4,100,000

 

 

 

$6,375,720

 

 

$

3,185,655

 

 

$

3,185,495

 

 

 

$18,418,024

 

Gregory P. Lewis

  

SVP and Chief Financial Officer

 

$

578,981

 

 

 

$   730,000

 

 

 

$   525,000

 

 

$

591,250

 

 

$

554,742

 

 

 

$  2,979,973

 

Timothy O. Mahoney

  

President and CEO, Aerospace

 

$

992,788

 

 

 

$1,840,000

 

 

 

$3,057,076

 

 

$

1,523,060

 

 

$

1,522,822

 

 

 

$  8,935,746

 

Krishna Mikkilineni

  

SVP, Engineering and IT

 

$

810,673

 

 

 

$   930,000

 

 

 

$2,632,028

 

 

$

1,307,845

 

 

$

1,305,276

 

 

 

$  6,985,822

 

Mark R. James

  

SVP, HR, Security and Communications

 

$

774,231

 

 

 

$1,080,000

 

 

 

$2,354,112

 

 

$

1,173,040

 

 

$

1,165,425

 

 

 

$  6,546,808

 

Thomas A. Szlosek(5)

  

Retired Chief Financial Officer

 

$

560,481

 

 

 

$             —

 

 

 

$2,713,768

 

 

$

1,348,050

 

 

$

1,336,354

 

 

 

$  5,958,653

 

(1)

Annual ICP payouts determined 80% based on a calculation against pre-set goals. The remaining 20% was based on individual assessments.

(2)

Grant date value of performance stock units (PSUs) issued for a new three-year performance period for all NEOs except Mr. Lewis. The amount for Mr. Lewis is the grant date value of performance cash units for the samethree-year performance period, made prior to him becoming an officer of the Company.

(3)

All stock option grants awarded to NEOs vest ratably over 4 years, have a 10-year term, and are subject to stock ownership and post-exercise holding requirements.

(4)

Restricted stock units vest over six-year periods and are subject to stock ownership and post-vesting holding requirements. The grant to Mr. Lewis, made prior to him becoming an officer of the Company, vests in three years.

(5)

2018-2020 Performance Plan Units and Stock Options granted to Mr. Szlosek in 2018 were forfeited upon his retirement.

48

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019



06  |

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION

AND ANALYSIS

IELEMENTS OF 20172018 TOTAL ANNUAL DIRECT COMPENSATION

 

LOGO

 

 

2018

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of ShareownersStatement  |  2019

       |       43

49



06  |

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION

AND ANALYSIS

Executive Compensation> Compensation Discussion And Analysis

 

I  CFO SUCCESSION

On August 3, 2018, Mr. Gregory P. Lewis succeeded Mr. Thomas A. Szlosek as the Company’s Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (CFO). In connection with this promotion, the MDCC approved a compensation arrangement for Mr. Lewis with an initial base salary of $700,000 and target annual incentive compensation opportunity of 100% of base salary. No additional LTI was awarded at the time of his promotion beyond the regular annual executive LTI grants made to him as a non-officer executive employee in February 2018. Mr. Lewis did not enter into a formal employment contract in connection with his promotion to CFO.

Concurrent with Mr. Lewis’ promotion on August 3, 2018, Mr. Szlosek entered into a retirement agreement after 14 years of service with the Company. Under the terms of this agreement, Mr. Szlosek agreed to provide transitional services through the end of 2018 and extend the duration of his post-employment non-compete and non-solicitation agreements from one to three years. While providing transition services during this period, Mr. Szlosek agreed not to accept an outside position with another company without Honeywell’s written consent and to make himself available to Honeywell’s CEO and CFO as needed. In consideration of the expanded restrictive covenants and transitional services, Mr. Szlosek was permitted to retain restricted stock unit awards previously granted to him, which would vest in the future on their original vesting dates subject to any applicable Company performance conditions. No regular compensation or consulting fees were paid during the transition period, and all other unvested LTI awards held by Mr. Szlosek as of his retirement date were forfeited, including PSUs and stock options awarded to him in February 2018.

PROGRAM ELEMENTS AND RELATED 20172018  ANNUAL INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN DECISIONS

Annual Incentive Compensation Plan (“ICP”)

In 2017,For 2018, 80% of the MDCC fully implemented changes in the methodology for determining annual ICP awards based on feedback received from some shareowners in 2016. Specific changes requested were that some portion ofearned by the annual bonus be formulaic and that baseline ICP amounts be reset to target each year (instead of using prior year actual payouts as the baseline, a discontinued prior practice). For 2017, ICP awardsNEOs were determined by having 80% formulaicformulaically based on financial targets established by the MDCC at the beginning of 2017.MDCC. 20% of the award wasawards were determined based on the MDCC’s qualitative assessment of individual performance against objectives for 20172018 and the significant accomplishments listed onpages 46-48.52-55. The attainment percentage for both the formulaic and individual qualitative portions of the award can range from 0% to 200%.

The individual 2017Individual 2018 ICP Target Amounts for Messrs. Adamczyk, Szlosek, Mahoney, Mikkilineni, and Gautamthe NEOs were determined by multiplying their 20172018 calendar year base salary by their individual ICP target award percentage. Individual ICP target percentages in 2017for 2018 were:

 

Mr. Adamczyk: 175%
Mr. Mahoney: 115%
Messrs. Szlosek, Mikkilineni and Gautam: 100%.

Mr. Adamczyk: 175%

 

As part of the CEO transition and for continued performance as Executive Chairman, Mr. Cote’s 2017 ICP Target Amount was set at $2,850,000, equal to half of his actual 2016 ICP payout.Mahoney: 115%

 

Other NEOs: 100%

IICP Formulaic PortionFORMULAIC PORTION (80% of Target Award)

2017 ICP Goals:OF TARGET AWARD)

The following table below includes a description ofdescribes each of the financial ICP targetsmetrics and the relative weighting percentage for each targetmetric that is included in the formulaic portion of the ICP payout (i.e., 80%) for each NEO. The

For Messrs. Adamczyk, Lewis, Mikkilineni and James (the Corporate NEOs), the formulaic portion of their ICP award was based onCompany-wide (Total Honeywell) adjusted EPS and adjusted FCF. For Mr. Mahoney (the Aerospace NEO), in addition to Total Honeywell adjusted EPS and adjusted FCF, the MDCC approved these targets in February 2017. The company-wide (“Total Honeywell”)also established financial targets for Aerospace net income and adjusted FCF which were given equal weighting. Mr. Szlosek was not considered for a 2018 ICP award as a result of his retirement.

                

Metric

  Significance  ICP Weighting (Formulaic) 
            
      
  Corporate NEOs     Aerospace NEO 
                

 

Adjusted EPS

  

 

 Viewed as the most important measure of near-term profitability that has a direct impact on stock price and shareowner value creation.

  

 

 

 

50%

 

 

    

 

 

 

25%

 

 

 

Aerospace

Net Income

  

 

 Business unit measure of near-term profitability and contribution to overall Company performance.

  

 

 

 

—  

 

 

    

 

 

 

25%

 

 

 

Total Honeywell

Adjusted Free Cash Flow

  

 

 Reflects quality of earnings and incremental cash generated from operations that may be reinvested in our businesses, used to make acquisitions, or returned to shareowners in the form of dividends or share repurchases.

  

 

 

 

50%

 

 

    

 

 

 

25%

 

 

 

Aerospace

Adjusted Free Cash Flow

  

 

 Business unit contribution to overall Company adjusted FCF performance.

  

 

 

 

—  

 

 

    

 

 

 

25%

 

 

Total

                              100%                              100% 

50

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019



06  |

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION

AND ANALYSIS

For 2018, the Total Honeywell targets for adjusted EPS and Free Cash Flow (“FCF”)adjusted FCF were based on the midpoint of the external guidance that was communicated to our shareowners during our December 2016 outlook call.January 2018 earnings call, as adjusted to exclude the impact of the spins for the portions of the year they were no longer a part of Honeywell (i.e., three months for Garrett and two months for Resideo).

 

              

ICP Goal

 2017
Actual
 2018 ICP Goal
(Target)
 v. 2017
Actual
 

Basis for

2018 Goals

   2018 Threshold
(50% Payout)
 2018 Maximum
(200% Payout)
              

 

Adjusted EPS

    

 

 

$7.15

 

 

$7.65

 +7.0% 

 Midpoint of initial guidance range communicated to investors in January 2018, adjusted for spin impact to guidance

  $6.12 $9.18
            

 

Total Honeywell

Adjusted Free Cash Flow

 $4.935 billion $5.366 billion +8.7%  $4.293 billion $6.439 billion
              

For Messrs. Adamczyk, Szlosek,

Spin impact to guidance accounts for after-tax segment profit of the Garrett and Mikkilineni (the “Corporate NEOs”), theResideo businesses subsequent to their respective spin dates, net of spin indemnification impacts.

I  ACTUAL PERFORMANCE AGAINST 2018 ICP GOALS

The Corporate NEO’s formulaic payout portion of their ICP award(80% of ICP) was based on performance against 2018 ICP goals for Total Honeywell EPS and FCF. For Mr. Mahoney and Mr. Gautam (the “SBG-Level NEOs”), in addition to Total Honeywell EPS and FCF, the MDCC also established financial targets for Net Income and FCF for their SBGs of Aerospace and Performance Materials and Technologies (“PMT”), respectively.as follows:

 

MetricSignificanceICP Weighting (formulaic)
    
  Corporate NEOsSBG-Level NEO
Earnings Per Share (“EPS”)Viewed as the most important measure of near-term profitability that has a direct impact on stock price and shareowner value creation.50%25%
SBG-Level Net IncomeBusiness unit measure of near-term profitability and contribution to overall company performance.-25%
Free Cash Flow (Total Honeywell)Reflects quality of earnings and incremental cash generated from operations that may be reinvested in our businesses, used to make acquisitions, or returned to shareowners in the form of dividends or share repurchases.50%25%
SBG-Level Free Cash FlowBusiness unit contribution to overall company FCF performance.-25%
  100%100%
        

ICP Goal

 

 

2018 ICP Goal
(Target)

 

   

2018 Actual
Performance

 

 

Achievement
%

 

 

2018 Performance

 

 

Metric
Payout
Percentage*

 

   

Corporate
NEO
Weighting

 

 

Calculated
Payout
Percentage

 

Adjusted EPS

 $7.65  $8.01 104.7% 

 Exceeded the Target ICP Goal for 2018.

 Represented a 12% increase over 2017 Actual.

 New record-level of performance for the Company.

 123.5%  50% 61.75%

Total Honeywell

Adjusted Free

Cash Flow

 $5.366 billion  $6.030 billion 112.4% 

 Exceeded the Target ICP Goal for 2018.

 Represented a 22% increase over 2017 Actual.

 New record-level of performance for the Company.

 161.9%  50% 80.95%
         
   

Total Calculated (Formulaic) Payout: Corporate NEOs

 

142.70%

44       |        Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners     |     2018

Executive Compensation> Compensation Discussion And Analysis

2017 ICP Goals: Quantitative Targets:

Total Honeywell:

ICP Goal2016 Actual*2017 ICP Goal
(Target)
v. 2016
Actual*
Basis for 2017 Goals 2017 Threshold
(50% Payout)
2017 Maximum
(200% Payout)
EPS$6.46$6.975+8.0%Midpoint of initial guidance range communicated to investors in December 2016. $5.58$8.37
Honeywell FCF$4,291 million$4,650 million+8.4% $3,720 million$5,580 million

Actual Performance against 2017 ICP Goals:

Total Honeywell:

ICP Goal2017 ICP Goal
(Target)
 2017 Actual
Performance
Achievement
%
2017 PerformanceMetric
Payout
Percentage
 Corporate
NEO
Weighting
 Calculated
Payout
Percentage
EPS$6.975 $7.11101.9%

Exceeded the Target ICP Goal for 2017.

 

Represented a 10.1% increase over 2016 Actual.*

 

New record-level of performance for the Company.

109.7% 50% 54.84%
Free Cash Flow$4,650 million $4,935 million106.1%

Exceeded the Target ICP Goal for 2017.

 

Represented a 15.0% increase over 2016 Actual.*

 

New record-level of performance for the Company.

130.6% 50% 65.32%
           
     Total Calculated (Formulaic) Payout: Corporate NEOs120.16%

* 2016 Actual restated to exclude impact of 2016 HTSI divestiture and the 2016 spin of the Resins & Chemicals business.

Aerospace:

Mr. Mahoney’s formulaic payout portion of ICP (80% of ICP) was based on performance against 20172018 ICP goals for both Total Honeywell and Aerospace as follows:

 

ICP Goal2017 ICP Goal
(Target)
 2017 Actual
Performance
Achievement %Metric Payout
Percentage
 SBG-Level
Weighting
 Calculated
Payout
Percentage
EPS$6.975 $7.11101.9%109.7% 25% 27.42%
Total Honeywell Free Cash Flow$4,650 million $4,935 million106.1%130.6% 25% 32.66%
Aerospace Net Income$2,210 million $2,488 million112.6%162.9% 25% 40.72%
Aerospace Free Cash Flow$2,436 million $2,506 million102.9%114.4% 25% 28.59%
          
   Total Calculated (Formulaic) Payout: Mr. Mahoney129.40%
                      
   ICP Goal  2018 ICP Goal
(Target)
    2018 Actual
Performance
  Achievement
%
  Metric Payout
Percentage*
    Aerospace
Weighting
    Calculated
Payout
Percentage
                      

 

Adjusted EPS

 

  

 

$7.65

 

   

 

$8.01

 

  

 

104.7%

 

  

 

123.5%

 

   

 

25%

 

   

 

30.88%

 

                      

Total Honeywell

Adjusted Free Cash Flow

  $5.366 billion   $6.030 billion  112.4%  161.9%   25%   40.48%
                      

 

Aerospace Net Income

 

  

 

$2.688 billion

 

   

 

$2.995 billion

 

  

 

111.4%

 

  

 

156.9%

 

   

 

25%

 

   

 

39.23%

 

                      

Aerospace

Adjusted Free Cash Flow

  $2.731 billion   $3.082 billion  112.9%  164.3%   25%   41.08%
                      
               
     

Total Calculated (Formulaic) Payout: Mr. Mahoney

  

151.67%

*Metric Payout Percentage based on ICP payout curve which provides for 5% incremental payout for each 1% of incremental performance above target.

PMT:Reconciliation, notes, and definitions of non-GAAP financial measures used in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis section and elsewhere in this Proxy Statement, other than as part of disclosure of target levels, can be found on page 38 or in Appendix A.

 

Mr. Gautam’s formulaic payout portion of ICP (80% of ICP) was based on performance against 2017 ICP goals for both Total Honeywell and PMT as follows:

ICP Goal2017 ICP Goal
(Target)
 2017 Actual
Performance
Achievement
%
Metric Payout
Percentage
 SBG-Level
Weighting
 Calculated
Payout
Percentage
EPS$6.975 $7.11101.9%109.7% 25% 27.42%
Total Honeywell Free Cash Flow$4,650 million $4,935 million106.1%130.6% 25% 32.66%
PMT Net Income$1,446 million $1,444 million99.8%99.6% 25% 24.90%
PMT Free Cash Flow$1,203 million $1,442 million119.8%199.2% 25% 49.79%
          
   Total Calculated (Formulaic) Payout: Mr. Gautam134.78%

 

2018

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of ShareownersStatement  |  2019

       |       45

51



06  |

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION

AND ANALYSIS

Executive Compensation> Compensation Discussion And Analysis

ICP-Individual Qualitative Portion (20% of Target Award)

 

General Assessment:I  ICP-INDIVIDUAL QUALITATIVE PORTION (20% OF TARGET AWARD)

The MDCC conducted a qualitative assessment to determine the individual qualitative portion of the ICP award payout, which accounted for 20 percent20% of the target award. The MDCC first reviewed overall industry conditions for each business segment and noted general 20172018 accomplishments that were significant to understanding individual NEO performance. The following summarizes key aspects of that analysis:

 

Honeywell’s 2017 Performance And Critical Business Transformation ActivitiesLOGO

Reconciliation, notes, and definitions of non-GAAP financial measures used in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis section and elsewhere in this Proxy Statement, other than as part of disclosure of target levels, can be found on page 38 or in Appendix A.

 

4% 70 bps 10% 35% 12%
Organic Margin EPS 1-Year FCF
Growth Expansion Growth TSR Growth

Met or exceeded the high-end of our original organic sales, segment margin, adjusted EPS, and adjusted FCF guidance in 2018 even after considering the dilution from the two spins

 

Completed successful CEO transition: continued superior financial performance, refocused strategic direction
Completed portfolio review and announced spin-offs that are anticipated to enhance value
Completed successful acquisition integrations (Intelligrated, Movilizer, RSI, Xtralis)
Expanded P/E multiple from 16.5x on January 1, 2017 to 21.6x at year-end, closing the gap with our Multi-Industry Peer Group
Grew segment profit more than two times the 2015/2016 average while funding nearly $350 million in restructuring
Completed the NextNine and SCAME Sistemi acquisitions and FLUX Information Technology joint venture in China

Led a substantial portfolio transformation that culminated in the spins of the legacy Transportation Systems (Garrett) and Homes (Resideo) businesses; transformation narrowed portfolio focus from eight to six attractive end markets

 

Honeywell 2017Acquired Transnorm (now part of Safety and Productivity Solutions) and Ortloff Engineers, Ltd. (now part of Performance Relative To PeersMaterials and Technologies)

 

Net income growth of 9.6% vs. multi-industry peer median of 2.4%
Earnings per share growth of 10.1% vs. multi-industry peer median of 4.2%
Return on invested capital of 16.2% vs. multi-industry peer median of 11.8% and compensation peer median of 12.3%

Seamlessly transitioned to a new CFO in August 2018 while maintaining operational efficiency that resulted in achieving 100% adjusted FCF conversion for the first time since 2012

 

Individual Assessments:Hired a Chief Supply Chain Officer to focus on key working capital initiatives and enhancing organizational efficiency across the Company’s supply chain. These initiatives helped us achieve a 0.6x working capital turn improvement and contributed approximately $150 million to our free cash flow growth in 2018.

The MDCC then reviewed and considered the key 20172018 activities and accomplishments for Mr. Adamczyk and each of the other NEOs at year end, some of which are summarized below:

Mr. Adamczyk—Adamczyk, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) – Qualitative Considerations—PresidentConsiderations

Successfully executed the portfolio review announced in October 2017, culminating with the spins of Honeywell’s Transportation Systems business and CEOits Homes product portfolio and ADI global distribution business into two standalone, publicly-traded companies. The portfolio enhancement required a substantial operational effort across the globe, led by a team of 100+ dedicated professionals, provided a dividend back to Honeywell of $2.8 billion, and provided indemnity protection to Honeywell for environmental and asbestos liability payments. This was all achieved with minimal business and customer disruption on an expedited timeline and ahead of investors’ expectations.

Led Honeywell through an outstanding year of financial outperformance even when considering the dilution from the two spins. Honeywell delivered adjusted EPS growth of 12% which was $0.21 above the high end of its original guidance; organic sales growth of 6% which was 2 points above the high end of its original guidance and the Company’s highest organic sales growth since 2011; margin expansion of 60 basis points which was 10 basis points above the high end of original guidance; and adjusted free cash flow of $6 billion, or $100 million above the high end of its original guidance, representing growth of 22% and conversion of 100%. On a comparable basis, the Company has not achieved 100% adjusted FCF conversion since 2012 and exceeded the prior five-year average by ~11%. Working capital initiatives drove 0.6x turns improvement which accounted for approximately $150 million of improvement in free cash flow.

Under Mr. Adamczyk’s leadership, our financial performance exceeded that of the majority of our Multi-Industry Peers in organic sales growth, segment margin expansion, and adjusted free cash flow growth and conversion.

Significantly enhanced Honeywell’s ability to rapidly grow our software business and further transform into a technology-industrial company. Software-only sales grew by 14% over prior year. Key organizational redesign in 2018 in this regard included the establishment of Honeywell Connected Enterprise (HCE), a strengthened and centralized organization that will serve as the software innovation engine for all of Honeywell. HCE operates with a culture of speed and the agility of a start-up, working closely with businesses and customers across the entire portfolio to build the world’s best software solutions rapidly and efficiently on a single platform.

Continued to effectively deploy capital to enhance Honeywell’s portfolio through acquisitions, joint ventures, and investments through Honeywell Ventures. Key accomplishments in 2018 included the acquisition of Ortloff Engineers, Ltd., a privately held licensor and industry-leading developer of specialized technologies that drive high returns in natural gas processing and sulfur recovery. These offerings complement our existing Honeywell UOP offerings, which allows us to better meet customer needs for high-recovery NGL extraction plants globally. Key accomplishments also included the acquisition of Transnorm, a global leader in high performance conveyor solutions that are used in diverse end

 

Successfully transitioned into the role of CEO after our long-serving former CEO David M. Cote stepped down in April 2017.

52

 

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019



Led Honeywell through an outstanding year of financial outperformance during which we delivered EPS growth of 10%, organic revenue growth of 4%, margin expansion of 70 basis points, and free cash flow growth of 12%. Our EPS growth, organic revenue growth, and free cash flow growth all exceeded the high-end of our initial guidance.
06  |  
Under Mr. Adamczyk’s leadership, our financial performance exceeded that of our Multi-Industry Peers in organic sales, EPS, net income, and free cash flow growth.
Led a comprehensive strategic review of Honeywell’s business portfolio that resulted in our October 2017 announcement that Honeywell intends to separately spin off its Homes product portfolio and ADI global distribution business, as well as its Transportation Systems business, into two stand-alone, publicly-traded companies. As part of that portfolio review, Mr. Adamczyk engineered the transition and integration of our Smart Energy business unit, previously part of Home and Building Technologies, into the Process Solutions unit within Honeywell Performance Materials and Technologies.
Continued to deepen and strengthen Honeywell’s transformation into a software-industrial company through a focused organic and inorganic investment strategy across our business portfolio. Key accomplishments in 2017 in this regard include ongoing organic investments in the Honeywell Sentience platform for all software efforts; equity investment and creation of a joint venture with FLUX Information Technology in China (to accelerate the growth of our connected solutions to serve the needs of operators and workers in the supply chain); the acquisition of NextNine, a leading cyber-security software provider; the acquisition of SCAME Sistemi, a leading provider of fire and gas safety systems; and the launch of a $100 million investment fund that will invest in early-stage, high-growth technology companies that are strategically aligned to our portfolio and software capabilities. Our Connected software sales for the year were up 23%.
Launched a focused effort to improve Commercial Excellence, including driving improvements in strategic planning, strategy development, and execution of breakthrough initiatives; revitalizing our Velocity Product Development process; improving the effectiveness of our salesforce; and enhancing customer decision-making abilities through the use of the Honeywell User Experience and digital tools.
Continued to invest in business unit restructuring actions across all of our reporting segments. In 2017, we funded nearly $350 million toward portfolio restructuring actions that will contribute to our ability to deliver ongoing margin expansion for the years ahead.

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION

AND ANALYSIS

 

46       |        Proxy

markets such as the parcel delivery, e-commerce fulfillment, and Noticeairport industries. The Transnorm acquisition strengthens Honeywell’s warehouse automation portfolio and positions the Company to support the growing European e-commerce market while broadening Honeywell’s Connected Distribution Center offering. The broader portfolio enables customers to achieve maximum throughput in fulfillment operations. Honeywell Ventures completed five investments including in Soft Robotics, a developer of Annual Meetingautomation solutions and soft robotic gripping systems that can grasp and manipulate items with the dexterity of Shareowners     |     2018a human hand, and IoTium, a managed secure network infrastructure platform for the industrial Internet of Things.

Executive Compensation> Compensation Discussion And Analysis

 

Deployed over $7 billion to capital expenditures, dividends, and share repurchases. The 10% dividend increase announced in September 2018 was the ninth consecutive double-digit increase since 2010 and was declared despite two spins that reduced sales by ~20%. The share repurchases of $4 billion lowered the outstanding share count by more than 2%.

Positioned the business for long-term growth and profitability through $520 million of repositioning actions that will improve the Company’s cost structure by reducing fixed cost, optimizing its manufacturing footprint, and improving supply chain operations to enhance delivery.

Drove a robust Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance program that includes final resolution of remediation challenges disclosed in SEC filings with the sale to Jersey City of the Bayfront brownfield site and the settlement of the Natural Resource Damages in Syracuse through provision of extensive public access and habitat opportunities; achievement of five-year public sustainability goal by year end (greenhouse gas intensity now improved by more than 90%); products that make a positive impact on the planet; improving sustainability of Company operations; Honeywell’s award-winning global citizenship initiative including STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) education as well as focus on safe water, humanitarian relief, and safety and accident prevention; an inclusion and diversity program ingrained in Honeywell’s culture; a new development program for Honeywell’s top 50 up-and-coming female leaders; and ensuring that Honeywell has zero tolerance for a hostile work environment.

Honeywell ranked number one in all categories in the Institutional Investor All-America Executive awards for the EE/MI sector, with Mr. Adamczyk named “Best CEO.”

Mr. Szlosek —Lewis, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer – Qualitative Considerations

Successfully transitioned into the role of CFO, effective August 3, after our former CFO, Thomas A. Szlosek, retired.

Effectively led the Treasury, Tax, Audit, Business Analysis and Planning, Investor Relations, M&A, Real Estate, Pension, Finance Operations, and Enterprise Information Management (EIM) groups beginning May 1, during the transition to CFO.

Led our Enterprise Information Management (EIM) initiative. During his time in this role, Mr. Lewis led a cross-functional team that worked to standardize data access and transform information systems across Honeywell’s enterprises into a differentiator in how we serve our customers, create new offerings, and run our businesses to drive superior returns. Mr. Lewis oversaw the elimination of 35 enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems in 2018 contributing to a total of 77 eliminations from a starting point of 148 in 2015. This put the Company on a path to drive more than $50 million in cost savings over the next several years. Developed, funded, and began implementation of the IT roadmap to digitize Honeywell’s internal operations.

Under Mr. Lewis’ leadership, Honeywell delivered a strong financial performance that exceeded the high end of its original 2018 guidance, even after considering the dilution from the spins of Transportation Systems and the Homes products portfolio and ADI global distribution business. Among our Multi-Industry Peers, Honeywell generated the second highest performance with respect to segment margin expansion, and adjusted free cash flow growth and conversion. The performance was driven principally by profitable growth across the businesses, with approximately 60% of the portfolio growing organic sales by more than 5%.

Drove a 0.6x turn improvement in working capital across the organization, which accounted for approximately $150 million of the total ~$1.1 billion improvement in adjusted free cash flow, and resulted in adjusted free cash flow conversion of 100%.

Oversaw the execution of a complex portfolio transformation that included over 90 factory and warehouse transitions, 17 ERP systems that were either eliminated, cloned or shut down, over 10,000 customer and supplier contract negotiations, over 20,000 employee payroll changes, and the negotiation of 225 transition services with the spin companies.

Effectively structured spin transactions that indemnify Honeywell for asbestos and environmental liability payments thereby creating cash flexibility and increasing cash flow.

Maintained Honeywell’s solid investment grade credit rating post spins through targeted use of spin proceeds for debt reduction and share repurchases.

Achieved growth in pension funding status from ~105% to ~106% and reduced market risk by de-risking pension through re-balancing of U.S. assets such that fixed income investments comprised ~ 49% of the portfolio at the end of 2018, up from 15% at the end of 2017.

Enhanced Honeywell’s balance sheet capacity through tax restructuring and cash repatriation, setting Honeywell up for long term growth and flexibility through balanced capital deployment across M&A, dividends, capex, and share repurchases.

 

Led Honeywell’s financial reporting, analysis and planning organization and delivered EPS growth of 10%, organic revenue growth of 4%, margin expansion of 70 basis points, and free cash flow growth of 12%.

LOGO

 

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019

53



EPS, free cash flow, and organic revenue growth exceeded the high end of our initial guidance.
06  |  
Among our Multi-Industry Peers, ranked No. 1 for free cash flow growth and No. 2 for EPS growth.
Provided key leadership in Honeywell’s strategic business portfolio review.
Built the Transportation Systems and Homes spin-off models and established transition teams and plans, including a roadmap for stranded cost elimination.
Significantly reduced Honeywell’s global effective tax rate to 21.0%, excluding the impact of the fourth quarter provisional charge related to tax legislation.
Executed a series of debt capital market transactions that enabled Honeywell to take advantage of historically low interest rates, lower its annual interest rate expense, and extend the tenure of its outstanding indebtedness.
Maintained Honeywell’s solid investment grade credit rating and sterling reputation in the debt capital markets.

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION

AND ANALYSIS

 

Mr. Mahoney, President and CEO, Aerospace – Qualitative Considerations

Delivered strong Aerospace performance with 9% organic sales growth and a segment margin of 22.6%.

Led several successful platform and airline pursuits, including winning the auxiliary power units on the new Air Force 1 aircraft and the USAF’s NextGen Bomber. Displaced the incumbent on the United Airlines 737MAX Avionics, and won the Advanced Jet Trainer engine, auxiliary power unit and mechanical systems, and the USAF’s trainer environmental control system.

Completed critical certifications of integrated avionics on the Pilatus PC-24, Boeing 757/767, and 787-10, and the upgrade to the DU1310 display, ahead of schedule and below budget.

Maintained global recognition of Honeywell Aerospace as a Health, Safety, Environment, Product Stewardship, and Sustainability leader, including 2018 recognition by the Industrial Commission of Arizona and the Arizona Division of Occupational Safety and Health as a “VPP Partner in Safety” and 2018 recognition by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality as a Platinum organization for commitments to waste reduction, energy efficiency and other continuous improvements to reduce impact on the environment.

 

Delivered strong Aerospace performance with a 2% increase in organic sales growth and a 10% increase in segment profit.
 
Led several successful platform and airline pursuits and certifications, including the selection of Honeywell’s 131-9 auxiliary power unit as standard technology on the Airbus A320, and the critical certifications of the Textron Longitude engine and integrated avionics certifications on the Embraer E2, Pilatus PC-24, and Gulfstream G500.
Continued to grow our Connected Aircraft business by double digits, driven by JetWave revenue growth of 63%; completed over 20 aircraft certifications; and delivered the first defense platform installation with the Royal Australian Air Force.

Drove significant commercial aviation aftermarket growth of 6%5% on the strength of softwareimproved maintenance contract capture, upgrade, and services through ourretrofit sales including GoDirect offerings supporting maintenance, fuel efficiencyTM solutions with numerous domestic and cabin services. These offerings were selected for the Dassault Falcon Connect and major global airlines, including Cathay Pacific, KLM, Japan Airlines, Tiger Airways, and Royal Jordanian.airlines.

Oversaw manufacturing excellence improvement efforts generating 14% increase in shipment volume and 23% reduction in customer escapes. Completed a three-year effort to improve the manufacturability of 6500-part numbers to 96% or greater rolled throughput yield, and embedded flawless launch and advanced planning in our new product introduction (NPI) processes.

Launched a major multi-year transformation of our supply base resulting in the performance remediation of 143 parts, and second sourcing of 41 parts in the first year, which will culminate in the exit out of 200 underperforming suppliers by the end of 2020.

Secured $2.5 billion of new, long-term service contracts with global commercial customers spanning the full product portfolio.

Delivered critical customer milestones greater than 95% on time on all development programs including the 777x first shipset delivery and the F124 First Engine to Test. Achieved a $29 million reduction in development program execution costs while completing critical customer milestones.

Continued to expand in High Growth Regions. Co-opened a new facility in China with the Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC) to produce technology for China’s commercial aircraft industry, and signed the country’s largest business jet operator to avionics and mechanical service plans.

Mr. Mikkilineni, Senior Vice President, Engineering and Information Technology – Qualitative Considerations

Led research, development and engineering (RDE), which enabled 2018 NPI revenue of $8.1 billion. Optimized RDE costs through footprint reductions from 241 to 138 sites and with continued automation including bots, software lifecycle management, NPI portfolio management, and product lifecycle management tools.

Developed and deployed five advanced technology priorities as well as product family-based technology roadmaps. Defined a new idea-to-revenue process, which optimizes cycle time, customer intimacy, and launch effectiveness with intention to drive NPI vitality up by 200 basis points annually.

Continued to drive Honeywell Technology Solutions with a global footprint of 7,000 engineers maintaining and developing 40% of Honeywell’s products; enabled local-for-local NPI revenue of $200 million.

Led the information technology function with $84M in year-over-year productivity. Implemented process enhancements that reduced time to resolve critical incidents by 50% and increased information technology services customer satisfaction rating by 5%. Moved over 930 applications to a cloud-based platform.

Led the Customer Care function with first call resolution at 85% and 24-hour case closure rate. Deployed a digital customer experience platform covering 50% of contact center staff.

Successfully transitioned direct responsibility for the Integrated Supply Chain function, as well as connected software and products, to other corporate officers in 2018.

Mr. James, Senior Vice President, Human Resources, Security and Communications – Qualitative Considerations

Effectively executed on critical human resources and systems transitions needed to complete the two spins in 2018. Established new organization structures and filled critical pre-spin roles to enable standalone operating companies, implemented new payroll and HR systems for 77 entities paying 21,000 employees in 57 countries, and split or established 121 employee benefits/pension plans. Separated 7,000 contracts while driving $70M in cost avoidance and $7.7M in productivity through spin-related negotiations.

Challenged the human resource services organization to expand the automation of its processes. These efforts resulted in the implementation of 34 new automated processes and 15 bots that are expected to generate $1 million in annual savings. Achieved a bot efficiency rating of 67% versus the industry standard of 45%.

54

 

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019



Oversaw manufacturing excellence improvements and footprint consolidation efforts that generated over 5% factory productivity while improving quality, product producibility, and consistency of delivery, and contributing to substantial fixed-cost reduction.
06  |  
Led successful new product introductions, including the new Primus Epic Touch Screen cockpit and Primus Elite LCD displays. Launched new breakthrough business offerings for Industrial Inertial Measurement Units and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles for use in adjacent, non-aerospace markets.
Continued to expand in High Growth Regions. Achieved double digit growth in China and helped enable the successful first flight of the COMAC C919 platform. Established a new business and distribution center in Malaysia that will help drive significant revenue growth in the region.

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION

AND ANALYSIS

 

Mr. Mikkilineni — Qualitative Considerations — Engineering, Ops

Led the staffing function to achieve a 25% improvement in hiring cycle time with a focused effort to identify and ITremove bottlenecks and automate initiation and approval processes. Focused on top-grading the organization to dramatically increase our subject matter expertise and capabilities. Achieved proper mix of internal and external hiring for new or backfilled executive-level roles to enhance software and technology capabilities to support the Company’s continued transformation.

 

Oversaw Honeywell Technology Solutions (“HTS”), which was involved in 35-40% of Honeywell’s global new product introductions (“NPI”) and continues to provide Honeywell a competitive advantage in product development. Expanded HTS global capability to Latin America.
Drove significant cost savings initiatives while maintaining high levels of customer satisfaction through centralization of the IT function and the deployment of process/data standards while ensuring a robust cyber-safety discipline.
Attained Honeywell Operating System (“HOS”) world-class performance for five sites globally based on results and maturity. Improved end-to-end improvement in integrated supply chain performance via the introduction of a new order-to-cash operating system.
Established a center of excellence (“COE”) focused on company-wide logistics and material management to drive consolidation of Honeywell’s warehouse and distribution footprint and reducing logistics and distribution spend.
Opened a new U.S.-based connected software center in Atlanta that is now fully operational. Recruited top-calibre software resources into the company, leveraging a formal evaluation system called multiplier assessment.

Drove the procurement function to deliver $275 million in savings through an innovative competitive sourcing strategy that covered about $3.7 billion in spend. Mr. James was responsible for the procurement function for the first half of 2018.

 

2018     |     Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners       |       47

Played key role in identifying, securing, and implementing new global headquarters location and laying foundation for successful move of key talent to Charlotte, North Carolina, beginning in 2019.

Table of Contents

Assumed responsibility for corporate security in 2018. Implemented enhanced tools that improved the time required to detect malicious cyber activity by 92% and decreased the time required to contain a cyber event by 72%.

Led the communications function to complete a comprehensive refresh of Honeywell’s Customer Experience Center in Washington, D.C. The improved center is organized around Honeywell’s key connected verticals – aircraft, plant, worker, building, supply chain, distribution center — and hosts an average of 2,000 visitors each year (seven ambassadors and 30 members of Congress attended grand opening).

Executive Compensation> Compensation Discussion And Analysis

Mr. Gautam — Qualitative Considerations — Performance Materials & Technologies

Delivered strong PMT organic revenue growth of 8%, exceeding the peer group and outperforming in a slow oil and gas market recovery.
Grew segment profit 4% in 2017, with consistent performance across PMT’s strategic business units driven by productivity and commercial excellence initiatives.
Positioned PMT for success into 2018 by expanding long-cycle backlog 8%, driven by significant orders growth. Won key global oil and gas projects in China and the Middle East.
Achieved 24% growth in breakthrough growth initiatives such as Connected Plant and Cyber Security.
Oversaw successful launches of key growth capex initiatives, including the Solstice plant in Geismar, LA, enabling double-digit Solstice®revenue growth.
Led performance in High Growth Regions, including double-digit growth in China and India, driven by sales force deployment and localization.
Acquired NextNine, an industry leader in security solutions and secure remote service capabilities, which enhances Honeywell’s existing range of innovative cyber security technologies and significantly increases Honeywell’s Connected Plant cyber security customer base.

Mr. Cote — Qualitative Considerations — Executive Chairman (CEO through March 30, 2017)

Delivered strong Q1 results and set the stage for Honeywell’s strong financial performance in 2017.
Assisted Mr. Adamczyk in his transition to CEO in April 2017 which was widely regarded as one of the most successful CEO transitions in the Multi-Industrial space as noted by analysts and investors.
Conducted extensive outreach to investors in the US and abroad, participating in numerous investor events leading up to and after Mr. Adamczyk’s appointment to CEO.
Ensured leadership continuity in his role of Executive Chairman-provided counsel and direction to Mr. Adamczyk and the Leadership Team during the comprehensive strategic review of Honeywell’s business portfolio.

ApprovedI  APPROVED ICP Payout Amounts

PAYOUT AMOUNTS

After applying the formulaic payout percentages described above (80% weight) and deciding individual performance attainment percentages for each NEO based on their qualitative assessment (20% weight), the MDCC approved 20172018 ICP payments as follows:

 

 
 

 

Formulaic Portion(1)

  

    +

 

     

 

Qualitative Portion(2)

  

    =

 

     

Total

Individual
ICP Payout
Percentage

 

    ×

 

     Target 2018
ICP Award
Amount(5)
 

    =

 

     

Actual 2018

ICP Award
(rounded)

 
 
FormulaicPortion(2) Qualitative Portion(2) Total Individual Target ICP Actual 2017        
 Payout+   Payout=ICP PayoutxAward=ICP Award Attainment × Weight Payout %   Attainment × Weight % Payout %       
AttainmentxWeight% AttainmentxWeight% Percentage Amount(5) (rounded) 
Mr. Adamczyk120.16% 80%96.1% 175.3% 20%35.1% 131.2% $2,496,986 $3,275,000 

 

142.70%

 

 

 

80%

 

 

 

114.2%

 

 

 

173.0%

 

 

 

20%

 

 

 

34.6%

 

 

 

148.8%

 

 

 

$2,757,328

 

 

 

$4,100,000

 

Mr. Szlosek120.16% 80%96.1% 154.3% 20%30.9% 127.0% $866,466 $1,100,000

Mr. Lewis

 

 

142.70%

 

 

 

80%

 

 

 

114.2%

 

 

 

175.0%

 

 

 

20%

 

 

 

35.0%

 

 

 

149.2%

 

 

 

$   491,465

 

 

 

$   730,000

 

Mr. Mahoney129.40%(3)80%103.5% 176.2% 20%35.2% 138.7% $1,110,034 $1,540,000 151.67%(3)   

 

80%

 

 

 

121.3%

 

 

 

200.0%

 

 

 

20%

 

 

 

40.0%

 

 

 

161.3%

 

 

 

$1,142,990

 

 

 

$1,840,000

 

Mr. Mikkilineni120.16% 80%96.1% 100.2% 20%20.0% 116.1% $787,808 $915,000 

 

142.70%

 

 

 

80%

 

 

 

114.2%

 

 0%(4)   

 

20%

 

 

 

0%

 

 

 

114.2%

 

 

 

$   811,342

 

 

 

$   930,000

 

Mr. Guatam134.77%(4)80%107.8% 184.3% 20%36.9% 144.7% $718,904 $1,040,000
Mr. Cote120.16% 80%96.1% 119.5% 20%23.9% 120.0% $2,850,000 $3,420,000

Mr. James

 

 

142.70%

 

 

 

80%

 

 

 

114.2%

 

 

 

125.0%

 

 

 

20%

 

 

 

25.0%

 

 

 

139.2%

 

 

 

$   775,123

 

 

 

$1,080,000

 

 

(1)

Attainment based on performance against 20172018 ICP Goals and application of leverage table. Attainment can range from 0% to 200%.

(2)

Attainment based on MDCC assessment. Attainment can range from 0% to 200%. Payout % can range from 0% to 40%.

(3)

Formulaic attainment percentage for Mr. Mahoney includes 50% of award based on full year Aerospace performance against Aerospace ICP goalsgoals.

(4)Formulaic

The MDCC’s determination of qualitative attainment percentage for Mr. Gautam includes 50%Mikkilineni reflects a reduction in the scope of award based on full year PMT performance against PMT ICP goals.his responsibilities during 2018, not his individual performance.

(5)

The Target 2018 ICP award amounts are equal toAward Amount for each NEOs 2017 calendar year base salary multiplied by their individual Target ICP award percentage, except for Mr. Cote, whose target award amountNEO was fixed at $2,850,000 (50% of his prior year actual ICP payout). Details for others:determined as follows:

 

 2017 Base Individual Target Target ICP
 Salary(1) x ICP Award %=Award Amount
Mr. Adamczyk$1,426,849 175% $2,496,986
Mr. Szlosek$866,466 100% $866,466
Mr. Mahoney$965,247 115% $1,110,034
Mr. Mikkilineni$787,808 100% $787,808
Mr. Guatam$718,904 100% $718,904
(1) Reflects the ICP applicable base salary for the 2017 calendar year

                     
  2018
Base Salary(a)
  ×  Individual Target
ICP Award %
  =  Target 2018 ICP
Award Amount
 
                     

Mr. Adamczyk

 

 

$1,575,616

 

     

 

175

     

 

$2,757,328

 

Mr. Lewis

 

 

$   587,877

 

      83.6%(b)      

 

$   491,465

 

Mr. Mahoney

 

 

$   993,904

 

     

 

115

     

 

$1,142,990

 

Mr. Mikkilineni

 

 

$   811,342

 

     

 

100

     

 

$   811,342

 

Mr. James

 

 

$   775,123

 

     

 

100

     

 

$   775,123

 


 

48       |        Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners     |     (a)

ICP applicable base salary for the 2018 calendar year.

 (b)

Individual Target ICP Award % for Mr. Lewis reflects proration due to change in his ICP target percentage during the performance year.

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019

55



Table of Contents
06  |

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION

AND ANALYSIS

Executive Compensation> Compensation Discussion And Analysis

 

Maximum Aggregate and Individual ICP Award Caps

Aggregate Spending Caps:The maximum aggregate amount of ICP awards that can be paid to all senior executive employees, including the NEOs, is 2.0% of the Company’s consolidated earnings. The actual spending was well under the permitted cap.

Individual Caps:The maximum individual ICP award that can be paid to the CEO is 0.4% of Consolidated Earnings. The maximum individual ICP award that can be paid to any other employee is 0.2% of Consolidated Earnings. Individual ICP awards are also capped at 200% of each NEO’s individual Target ICP award amount. Actual 2017 ICP awards to the NEOs were significantly below the individual caps.

2018 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE COMPENSATION (“LTI”)DECISIONS

The mixGrants of LTI awards to the CEO and other NEOs for 2017 reflectsin February 2018 reflected the evolution of our LTI program, which was fully implemented in 2018, with full implementationthe mix of annual LTI being 50% in performance stock units, 25% in stock options, and 25% in restricted stock units.

LOGO

As Mr. Lewis became an NEO after annual grants were made in February, his 2018 LTI awards differed from the NEO Target Mix. His 2018 LTI mix was 31% in Performance Plan cash units, 35% stock options, and 33% RSUs.

I  TOTAL LTI VALUE

For 2018 LTI awards to the NEOs, the MDCC (or, in the case of Mr. Adamczyk, the independent members of the new programfull Board) determined a total annual LTI value to be awarded and then allocated the award between PSUs, RSUs and stock options based on the mix proportions described above. Each of the three elements and the respective values awarded to occureach NEO are described in 2018.detail below.

In determining the Total LTI value to be awarded to each NEO, factors that were considered included:

 

In 2017, the NEOs were granted Performance Stock Units (“PSUs”) under the new Performance Plan for the 2017-2019 performance period along with a reduced numberThe relative value of Stock Options (with lower weight in the mix). The MDCC also attributed half of the biennial Performance RSUs and Growth Planlong-term incentive awards granted to comparable named executive officers at the NEOs in 2016 as compensation for 2017, as these grants covered a 2-year period. After 2017, all LTI will be granted on an annual basis, as biennial grants are now phased out.Compensation Peer Group companies,

 

Any changes in the scope of responsibilities,

The following reflectsvalue of LTI awards granted in prior years, and

Each NEO’s leadership impact and expected future contribution toward the shift in LTI to a program more heavily weighted toward PSUs, as described earlier onpage 37.

2018     |     Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners       |       49

Executive Compensation> Compensation Discussion And Analysis

Descriptionoverall success of 2017 LTI Program ElementsHoneywell.

 

2017-2019I  PERFORMANCE STOCK UNITS

2018-2020 Performance Plan

The Performance Plan is a share-based, long-term incentive plan introduced in 2017, under which2017. Under the 2018-2020 Performance Plan, a target number of PSUs were issued to each NEO (except Mr. Cote as Executive Chairman)executive officer of the Company in February 2018, for the performance period January 1, 20172018, through December 31, 2019.2020. The actual number of PSUs earned by each NEO will be determined at the end of the three-year period based on Company performance as measured by the following four equally weightedequally-weighted performance metrics:

 

3-year

3-Year Cumulative Revenue
(25% (25% weight)

Measures the effectiveness of our organic growth strategies, including new product introduction and marketing and sales effectiveness, as well as projected growth in our end markets.

Performance Plan targets were developed from a 2016 revenue baseline of $38.8B, which reflects the inclusion of pre-2017 acquisitions and the removal of pre-2017 divestitures for the full year.
Reported revenue will be adjusted to exclude the impact of corporate transactions (e.g., acquisitions, divestitures, spin-offs)spins) and fluctuations in foreign currency rates.

    

3-Year Average Segment Margin %
Rate

(25% weight)

Focuses executives on driving continued operational improvements and delivering synergies from recent corporate actions and acquisitions.

Performance Plan targets were developed from a 2016 baseline of 18.1%, which reflects the inclusion of pre-2017 acquisitions and the removal of pre-2017 divestitures for the full year.
Results will not be adjusted for foreign currency changes over the cycle.

    

3-Year Average ROI
(25% (25% weight)

Focuses leadership on making investment decisions that deliver a high level of profitability.

Performance Plan targets were developed from a 2016 ROI baseline of 19.7%, which reflects the inclusion of pre-2017 acquisitions and the removal of pre-2017 divestitures for the full year.
Results will not be adjusted for foreign currency changes over the cycle.

    

3-Year Relative TSR

(25% weight)

Measures Honeywell’s three-year cumulative TSR relative to the 20172018 Compensation Peer Group over the Plan’s three-year performance plan.

period.

The beginning point for TSR determination (all companies) will be based on 30 trading days from the beginning of the measurementperformance period. The ending point will be based on 30 days leading up to the end of the measurementperformance period.

56

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019



06  |

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION

AND ANALYSIS

 

In February 2017,2018, the MDCC established the actual performance goals for the 2017-20192018-2020 performance period.period assuming no portfolio changes. In keeping with the design of the Performance Plan, these goals were adjusted in the fourth quarter of 2018 to take into consideration the impact of the two spins on the full performance period goals. Goals were set for the total Company (“Total Company”)(Total Company) and separately for each of the SBGs.our businesses. For Corporate NEOs, including the CEO, awards are earned based on performance against the performance metrics stated above. For SBG-level NEOs (i.e., SBG Presidents),the Aerospace NEO, the financial goals portion of the award (75% at target) is based 50% on performance against goals set for their respective SBGAerospace and 50% against the Total Company goals.

The table below sets out each metric at the Total Company level, their respective goals for the three-year2018-2020 period, and the number of PSUs that would be earned at each specified level of performance. No PSUs will be earned for a metric if performance falls below the noted threshold. If the Company’s performance for any of the performance metrics falls between the percentages listed on the table, the percentage of PSUs earned shall be determined by linear interpolation. The total number of PSUs that may be earned can range from 0% to 200% of the target number of PSUs originally awarded.

 

Performance Goals for 2017-2019 PSU Awards

                        
  3-Year
Cumulative
Revenue ($M)
   % of PSUs   3-Year Average
Segment
Margin Rate
   % of PSUs   3-Year
Average ROI
   % of PSUs   3-Year Relative
Total Shareowner
Return
 % of PSUs   Total %
of PSUs
 
                        
3-YEAR CUMULATIVE
REVENUE ($M)
% of PSUs3-YEAR AVERAGE
SEGMENT
MARGIN RATE
% of PSUs3-YEAR
AVERAGE ROI
% of PSUs3-YEAR RELATIVE
SHAREHOLDER RETURN
% of PSUsTOTAL % of
PSUs
No payoutbelow $113,8090%below 18.80%0%below 20.4%0%below 35th Percentile0%0%  

 

< $106,582

 

  

 

0%

 

  

 

< 19.7%

 

  

 

0%

 

  

 

< 22.5%

 

  

 

0%

 

  

 

< 35th Percentile

 

 

 

0%

 

  

 

0%

 

  

 

—  

 

     

 

—  

 

     

 

—  

 

      35th Percentile(1)   

 

6.25%

 

  

 

6.25%

 

Threshold- - - 35th Percentile*6.25%6.25%  

 

td06,582

 

  

 

12.5%

 

  

 

19.7%

 

  

 

12.5%

 

  

 

22.5%

 

  

 

12.5%

 

  

 

40th Percentile

 

 

 

12.5%

 

  

 

50%

 

td13,80912.5%18.8%12.5%20.4%12.5%40th Percentile12.5%50%
Target$117,93725%19.3%25%21.1%25%50th Percentile25%100%  

 

$110,448

 

  

 

25%

 

  

 

20.2%

 

  

 

25%

 

  

 

23.2%

 

  

 

25%

 

  

 

50th Percentile

 

 

 

25%

 

  

 

100%

 

$120,00037.5%19.55%37.5%21.5%37.5%60th Percentile37.5%150%
  

 

$112,381

 

  

 

37.5%

 

  

 

20.45%

 

  

 

37.5%

 

  

 

23.6%

 

  

 

37.5%

 

  

 

60th Percentile

 

 

 

37.5%

 

  

 

150%

 

Maximum$122,06450%19.8%50%21.9%50%>= 75th Percentile50%200%  

 

>= $114,313

 

  

 

50%

 

  

 

>= 20.7%

 

  

 

50%

 

  

 

>= 24.0%

 

  

 

50%

 

  

 

>= 75th Percentile

 

 

 

50%

 

  

 

200%

 

* Represents Threshold for the relative TSR metric. 

 

50       |        (1)Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners     |     2018

Represents threshold for the relative TSR metric.

Executive Compensation> Compensation Discussion And Analysis

The targets for each of the three operational metrics of the 2017-2019Annual three-year Performance Plan were established based on levels of performance contemplated inawards to non-officer executive employees utilize the Company’s 2017 annual operating plan (“AOP”), external guidance,same goals and its five-year strategic plan (“STRAP”). Targets also reflect expectations about the external environment, changes in the portfolio, historical trends, and performance versus peers. Cumulative revenue targets were based on the midpoint of external revenue guidance for 2017, which also aligned with 2016 world GDP growth. The 2018 and 2019 revenues were based on 2014-2016 average actual organic growth. Average margin targets were based on the midpoint of external margin guidance for 2017, which was at the high end of multi-industry peer group, and incremental growth in both 2018 and 2019 adjustedset out above for the expected foreign currency headwind from 2017 hedges. For average ROI targets, net income before interest (“NIBI”)-the ROI numerator-was basedNEOs, excluding the relative TSR metric. The three financial metrics are equally weighted. The grant to Mr. Lewis in 2018 was made on the after-tax profit dollars implied in the revenue and margin targets and the same level of after-tax, below-the-line cost included in 2017 EPS guidance. Net Investment-the ROI denominator-was based on AOP and STRAP depreciation, amortization, capex, and working capital improvement adjusted to drive more than 2 percentage points of ROI expansion through 2019. The MDCC believes the growth reflected in these targets is expected to motivate performance that will continue to drive high levels of total shareowner returns relative to our peers.this basis.

2017-20192018-2020 Performance Plan Awards to NEOs

PSUsPerformance Plan awards were awardedgranted to the NEOs (other than Mr. Cote) for the 2017-20192018-2020 performance period in the first quarter of 2017:2018:

 

      

NEO

  

# of Performance

Units(1)

   

Grant Date

Value(2)

 
      
# of
PSUs
Grant Date
Value*
Mr. Adamczyk40,000$5,254,000  

 

39,000

 

  

$

6,375,720

 

Mr. Szlosek16,000$2,101,600

Mr. Lewis(3)

  

 

5,250

 

  

$

525,000

 

Mr. Mahoney17,000$2,232,950  

 

18,700

 

  

$

3,057,076

 

Mr. Mikkilineni15,000$1,970,250  

 

16,100

 

  

$

2,632,028

 

Mr. Gautam12,000$1,576,200

Mr. James

  

 

14,400

 

  

$

2,354,112

 

Mr. Szlosek (4)

  

 

16,600

 

  

$

2,713,768

 

 

*(1)Grant Date Value

All grants awarded on February 27, 2018.

(2)

The grant date unit value of $131.35$163.48 was determined based on the fair market value of Honeywell stock on the date of grant of $124.99$155.39 for the three internal financial metrics, and a value of $150.44$187.75 for the relative TSR metric, based on a multifactor Monte Carlo simulation conducted by an independent valuation service provider.

(3)

The grant date unit value of the cash-based performance award to Mr. Lewis was $100.00.

(4)

The grant made to Mr. Szlosek was later forfeited upon his retirement.

At the end of the three-year performance period, the total number of PSUs earned for each NEO shall be determined on a strictly formulaic basis. Dividend equivalents applied during the vesting period as additional PSUs will be adjusted based on the final number of PSUs earned. 50% of the resulting PSUs earned will be converted to shares of Company common stock and issued to each NEO, subject to the holding period requirements for officers (seepage 58).officers. The remaining 50% shall be converted to cash based on the fair market value of a share of Honeywell stock on the last day of the performance period and paid to each NEO in the first quarter following the end of the performance period.

 

Stock Options

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019

57



06  |

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION

AND ANALYSIS

2017-2019 Performance Plan Goals

In keeping with the design of the Performance Plan, upon the spins of Garrett and Resideo in 2018, the MDCC approved a restatement of the goals originally set-out in 2017 for the 2017-2019 performance period to adjust for the impact of the two spins. The approach used was to include Garrett and Resideo in the goals for the portion of the performance period that they were part of Honeywell and exclude them for the portion of the period they were not. The impact was that the three-year cumulative revenue target decreased by excluding Garrett and Resideo revenue from their respective spin dates in Q4 2018 through 2019. The three-year average segment margin rate and average ROI goals both increased as a result of applying the same adjustment approach to those metrics. Changes to threshold and maximum levels were scaled consistent with the original targets. There was no change or impact on the relative TSR targets.

The following table describes the 2017-2019 Performance Plan goals as restated for impact of the 2018 spins:

 

                                             
   3-Year
Cumulative
Revenue
($M)
   % of PSUs   3-Year Average
Segment
Margin Rate
   % of PSUs   3-Year
Average ROI
   % of PSUs   

3-Year

Relative Total
Shareowner
Return

  % of PSUs   Total %
of PSUs
 
                                             

No payout

  

 

< $104,942

 

  

 

0%

 

  

 

< 19.1%

 

  

 

0%

 

  

 

< 20.5%

 

  

 

0%

 

  

 

< 35th Percentile

 

 

 

0%

 

  

 

0%

 

  

 

—  

 

       

 

—  

 

       

 

—  

 

        

 

35th Percentile

 

(1) 

 

 
 

 

6.25%

 

  

 

6.25%

 

Threshold

  

 

$104,942

 

  

 

12.5%

 

  

 

19.1%

 

  

 

12.5%

 

  

 

20.5%

 

  

 

12.5%

 

  

 

40th Percentile

 

 

 

12.5%

 

  

 

50%

 

Target

  

 

$108,748

 

  

 

25%

 

  

 

19.6%

 

  

 

25%

 

  

 

21.2%

 

  

 

25%

 

  

 

50th Percentile

 

 

 

25%

 

  

 

100%

 

   

 

$110,651

 

  

 

37.5%

 

  

 

19.85%

 

  

 

37.5%

 

  

 

21.6%

 

  

 

37.5%

 

  

 

60th Percentile

 

 

 

37.5%

 

  

 

150%

 

Maximum

  

 

>= $112,554

 

  

 

50%

 

  

 

>= 20.1%

 

  

 

50%

 

  

 

>= 22.0%

 

  

 

50%

 

  

 

>= 75th Percentile

 

 

 

50%

 

  

 

200%

 

(1)

Represents threshold for the relative TSR metric.

No Completed Performance Periods in 2018

As part of the transitional changesPerformance Plan was first introduced in 2017 for the 2017-2019 performance period, and the prior biennial Growth Plan ended with its last performance cycle in 2017, there were no long-term performance award cycles concluded in 2018 to the overall compensation programbe reported in response to prior year shareowner feedback, stockthis Proxy Statement.

I  STOCK OPTIONS

Stock options granted to the NEOs in 2017February 2018 represented 25% of the total LTI mix, a lower percentage of the overall LTI mix and will ramp down againthan in 2018 to represent approximately 25% of the total LTI mix (other than to Mr. Cote).prior years. The MDCC believes that stock options continue to be an important element for focusing executives on actions that drive long-term stock appreciation.

Award to Mr. Adamczyk:In February 2017, the MDCC granted Mr. Adamczyk 216,000 stock options, with an exercise price of $124.99 and a grant date value of $3,596,400.

In setting the Stock Option grant size for Mr. Adamczyk, the MDCC considered the overall value and mix of long-term incentive awards being made to CEOs in the Compensation Peer Group companies alongappreciation that is directly aligned with the grant date valueinterests of his 2017 Performance Plan PSU grant and the annualized value of the 2017 portion of his biennial Growth Plan award and Performance RSU grant made in 2016. On this basis, Mr. Adamczyk’s 2017 stock option grant represented 31% of his total LTI for 2017.

our shareowners.

Stock options granted to Mr. Adamczyk, and all the other NEOs, vest 25% per year over four years, and have a 10-year term to exercise. The strike price for the 20172018 annual stock options is $124.99,$155.39, which was the fair market value of Honeywell stock on the date of grant (February 28, 2017)27, 2018). The grant date value was determined using a Black-Scholes value of $16.65$23.65 per share as provided by a third-party valuation company.

Awards to other NEOs:For each of the other NEOs, the MDCC considered various factors in determining grant sizes, such as:

Each NEO’s leadership impact and expected contribution toward the overall success of Honeywell.
The size of previous grants of stock options awarded to each NEO.
The transitional reduction in percentage of LTI delivered as stock options in 2017 vs. 2016, consistent with the ramp down of stock options in the overall LTI mix.
The amount of vested and unvested equity each NEO holds.
The annualized value of the 2017 portion of each NEO’s biennial Growth Plan award and Performance RSU grant made in 2016.
The value and mix of long-term incentive awards granted to comparable named executive officers at the Compensation Peer Group companies.

2018     |     Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners       |       51

Executive Compensation> Compensation Discussion And Analysis

The following table presents the number of stock options granted to the other NEOs along with their respective grant date values.

 

 # of Stock
Options
Awarded
Grant Date Value
Mr. Szlosek108,000$1,798,200
Mr. Mahoney124,000$2,064,600
Mr. Mikkilineni108,000$1,798,200
Mr. Gautam70,000$1,165,500
Mr. Cote600,000$9,990,000
           

NEO

  # of Stock
Options Awarded(1)
   

Grant Date

Value(2)

 
           

Mr. Adamczyk

  

 

134,700

 

  

$

3,185,655

 

Mr. Lewis

  

 

25,000

 

  

$

591,250

 

Mr. Mahoney

  

 

64,400

 

  

$

1,523,060

 

Mr. Mikkilineni

  

 

55,300

 

  

$

1,307,845

 

Mr. James

  

 

49,600

 

  

$

1,173,040

 

Mr. Szlosek (3)

  

 

57,000

 

  

$

1,348,050

 

(1)

All grants awarded on February 27, 2018.

(2)

The grant date value was determined using a Black-Scholes value of $23.65 per share.

(3)

The grant made to Mr. Szlosek was later forfeited upon his retirement

 

Granted on February 28, 2017. The grant date value was determined using a Black-Scholes value of $16.65 per share.

 

58

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019


The 2017 stock option grant to Mr. Cote was made while in the CEO role and represented his last LTI grant from Honeywell. The MDCC considered this grant in the context of the overall CEO succession activities and the expected impact on future stock appreciation from his continued leadership as Executive Chairman and post-retirement availability as a consultant. No other LTI was granted to Mr. Cote in 2017. Mr. Cote will receive no other direct compensation or consulting fees for the five-year consulting services arrangement included in his June 2016 CEO Continuity Agreement, which will begin when he leaves the Board in April 2018.


06  |

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION

AND ANALYSIS

 

2016-2017 Growth PlanI  RESTRICTED STOCK UNITS

Our Growth Plan wasIn the past, restricted stock units (RSUs) were issued to NEOs on a long-term incentive plan that provided performance-contingent, cash-based incentive awards to focus executives on achievement of objective, two-year financial metrics.biennial basis, with grants made off-cycle from the annual LTI grant. In response to shareowner feedback received in 2016, the MDCC determinedlast biennial RSU grants to NEOs were made in 2017 that Growth Plan Unit (“GPU”) awards2016 and no RSUs were granted in 2016 for2017. Beginning in 2018, regular RSUs will now be issued to NEOs on an annual basis with grants made at the 2016-2017 Growth Plan performance cycle would besame time as other LTI awards; representing the last biennial cycle awards underchange in the Growth Plan, and thatLTI program transition. RSUs granted to the new 3-year, share-based Performance Plan (discussed onpages 50-51) would be implementedNEOs in its place.

Summary of Growth Plan (now discontinued)
GPUs were granted every other year (non-overlapping cycles). The 2016-2017 cycle grant was made in February 2016.
Each GPU had a 2-year target value of $100 ($50 when annualized).
Performance was measured against three equally weighted internal performance metrics. For each metric, a required minimum level of achievement (i.e. threshold) needed to be attained before the plan would fund for that metric.
Goals for each metric were established at the total company level (“Total HON”) and for each SBG.
At the end of the 2-year performance cycle, payouts were determined on a purely formulaic basis.
Individual earned amounts were paid in cash in two installments. 50% was paid in March of the year following the completion of the performance cycle, with the remaining 50% paid a year later as a retention tool.

At the beginning of 2016, the MDCC set goals for the 2016-2017 Growth Plan based on financial metrics which were directly aligned with long-term strategic goalsFebruary 2018 represented 25% of the Company.

At the end of the performance cycle, calculated payouts for executives working intotal target LTI value and mix and vest over an SBG were based 50% on Total HON performance and 50% based on the performance of their SBG against separate SBG-level Growth Plan goals. An executive who transferred between SBGs at any time during the two-year performance cycle, had their earned payout prorated based on the time spent in each respective SBG.

52       |        Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners     |     2018

Executive Compensation> Compensation Discussion And Analysis

Performance Summary:

extended period.

The following table presents the rigorous performance goals that were set for the 2016-2017 biennial Growth Plan performance cycle, and how the Company performed against those goals at the Total HON level:

Note: Growth Plan results exclude the impact of items not contemplated in the targets including mid-cycle acquisitions, divestitures and spin-offs, incremental restructuring, changes in accounting, changes in pension, and impact of significant and unusual or infrequently occurring items such as tax reform.

Calculated payments for the SBGs were: Aerospace 36%, PMT 103%, HBT 43%, and SPS 48%. The “low level” of pay out for this performance cycle underscores the formulaic basis and pay-for-performance alignment of the compensation program.

Recap:Awards under the 2016-2017 Growth Plan cycle were earned at a low level based on a combination of factors. Performance was weighed down significantly by a very challenging macroeconomic environment in 2016, especially in Aerospace. The cumulative Total Revenue target required 2% and 3% organic growth in 2016 and 2017 which, given market conditions, proved to be too aggressive. The 2017 revenue performance also put pressure on the 2017 segment margin performance. Growth Plan margins partially recovered in 2017 from the slowed momentum in 2016, landing just at the 50% achievement threshold for performance against that metric.

The following table presents the target number of GPUs granted to each NEO in February 2016, and the annualized value of the final earned awards attributed to 2017:

  # of GPUs
Awarded for
2016-2017
Performance
Cycle
xAnnualized
Growth Plan
Unit Value at
($100/2)(1)
=Annualized
Target Award
Value(2)
xFinal Pay Out
Percentage
(based on
Business Unit)
=Earned Award
Attributable to
2017(2) (3)
 Reported on
Summary
Compensation
Table(5)
Mr. Adamczyk  40,000   $50    $2,000,000   61.2%  $1,224,000   $2,448,000 
Mr. Szlosek  25,000   $50  $1,250,000   55%  $687,500   $1,375,000 
Mr. Mahoney  25,000   $50  $1,250,000   36%  $450,000   $900,000 
Mr. Mikkilineni  20,000   $50  $1,000,000   55%  $550,000   $1,100,000 
Mr. Gautam  15,000   $50   $750,000   103%  $772,500   $1,545,000 
Mr. Cote(4)  95,000   $50  $4,750,000   55%  $2,612,500   $5,225,000 
(1)Represents the target value of one GPU shown on an annualized basis (i.e., $100 unit value divided by 2) consistent with MDCC’s approach for biennial awards.
(2)Consistent with how the MDCC assigns value when planning NEO compensation, which considers the Growth Plan as being earned 50% in the first year of the performance cycle (2016) and 50% in the second year of the performance cycle (2017).
(3)Represents the portion of the earned award under the biennial Growth Plan attributable to 2017. The full earned award is shown in the column to the right. 50% of the full earned award was paid in March 2018 and the remaining 50% will be paid in March 2019, subject to continued employment with the Company.
(4)The earned award to Mr. Cote is being settled in shares of Honeywell stock which must be held for at least one year, in accordance with a decision by the MDCC in 2016 to reduce the portion of his compensation paid in cash.

2018     |     Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners       |       53

Executive Compensation> Compensation Discussion And Analysis

(5)As a cash-based award, SEC rules require that the full amount of the 2016-2017 Growth Plan earned award for the two-year performance cycle be reported on the Summary Compensation Table as a component of Non-Equity Compensation for 2017. This treatment is inconsistent with how the MDCC has historically viewed the Growth Plan when planning NEO compensation (see note 2 above). As a result of the discontinuance of the biennial Growth Plan in 2017 and the implementation of annual stock-based awards under the Performance Plan, this inconsistency between reporting and planning NEO compensation will be eliminated beginning in 2018.

Mr. Adamczyk’s 2016-2017 Growth Plan earned award was determined on prorated basis using the PMT payout percentage for the number of days he worked in PMT in 2016 and using the Total HON payout percentage for the number of days he worked in Corporate in 2016 and 2017 as both COO and CEO.

Messrs. Szlosek, Mikkilineni and Cote, who worked in Corporate for the full performance cycle, had their 2016-2017 Growth Plan earned awards determined based on the Total HON performance.

Messrs. Mahoney and Gautam, who each worked in the same SBG for the full performance cycle, had 50% of their 2016-2017 Growth Plan earned award determined based on the Total HON performance and 50% based on the performance of their respective SBGs.

Growth Plan — Timing of Payouts

Historically, grants under the Growth Plan were made every other year and earned awards were then paid in two installments after the end of the performance cycle to normalize payouts and provide an additional retention incentive. Due to the planned discontinuance of the Growth Plan, in 2017 there was a one-year transitional overlap of the 2016-2017 Growth Plan with the 2017-2019 Performance Plan to avoid a gap year in payout opportunity and facilitate the transition to the revised compensation structure that will be fully implemented in 2018. The following table shows the performance and payout cycle of the new Performance Plan and how the transitional overlap with the final Growth Plan will work.

Performance Restricted Stock Units (“Performance RSUs”)

No Performance RSUs were granted to the NEOs in 2017. As part of the broader changes in the overall executive compensation program that will be fully implemented in 2018 the MDCC determined that 2016 would be the final year of issuing biennial Performance RSU grants. Beginning in 2018, RSUs will be reintroduced and granted annually as part of the regular LTI mix. As was the casealong with the biennial Growth Plan, because the Performance RSUs granted in 2016 covered two years, the MDCC attributed half of thetheir respective grant date value to 2017 when planning compensation for the NEOs.values.

 

In response to feedback from shareowners, in 2016, the MDCC made 100% of the biennial Performance RSU awards contingent on relative TSR performance. Prior biennial performance-based RSU grants to officers had 30% of the payout linked to relative TSR performance.

The target number of Performance RSUs issued to the NEOs in 2016 is shown in the table below. The actual number of shares earned will be determined based on Honeywell’s relative TSR performance against the Compensation Peer Group over a three-year period (August 1, 2016 - July 31, 2019). The target number of shares will be earned if Honeywell’s TSR is at the 50th percentile versus our Compensation Peer Group. No shares will be earned unless Honeywell’s relative TSR performance is at least 35th percentile.

                    

NEO

    

Target #

of RSUs (1)

     

Grant Date

Value (2)

     

Vesting(3)

                    

Mr. Adamczyk

    

 

20,500

 

    

 

$3,185,495

 

    

33% in 2 years; 33% in 4 years; 34% in 6 years

Mr. Lewis

    

 

3,570

 

    

 

$   554,742

 

    

100% in 3 years

Mr. Mahoney

    

 

9,800

 

    

 

$1,522,822

 

    

33% in 2 years; 33% in 4 years; 34% in 6 years

Mr. Mikkilineni

    

 

8,400

 

    

 

$1,305,276

 

    

33% in 2 years; 33% in 4 years; 34% in 6 years

Mr. James

    

 

7,500

 

    

 

$1,165,425

 

    

33% in 2 years; 33% in 4 years; 34% in 6 years

Mr. Szlosek

    

 

8,600

 

    

 

$1,336,354

 

    

33% in 2 years; 33% in 4 years; 34% in 6 years

 

54       |        (1)Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners     |     2018

All grants awarded on February 27, 2018.

Executive Compensation> Compensation Discussion And Analysis

The complete payout matrix related to the Performance RSUs follows:

Honeywell’s
Relative TSR
Percentile
Rank
Shares
Earned as
% of Target
>=75th200%
60th150%
50th100%
40th50%
35th25%
<35th0%

Extrapolate payout % for intermediate relative TSR points on matrix.

Beginning point for TSR determination based on 30 trading days from beginning of 3-year measurement period.

Ending point based on 30 trading days to end of measurement period.

After the three-year performance-period is over, earned shares will be subject to an additional time vesting period, which may vary by NEO. The table below shows the target number of Performance RSUs that were granted to each NEO in 2016 and the related vesting periods. The extended vesting periods are intended to strengthen the retention of these key executives in support of the company’s management development and succession plans.

2016 Performance RSU Awards

NEOTarget # of
Shares(1)*
Grant Date
Value(2)
Vesting(3)Attributed to
2017 by MDCC(4)
Mr. Adamczyk25,000$3,343,75033% in 3 years; 33% in 5 years; 34% in 7 years$1,671,875
Mr. Szlosek20,000$2,675,00033% in 3 years; 33% in 5 years; 34% in 7 years$1,337,500
Mr. Mahoney30,000$4,012,50050% in 3 years; 50% in 5 years$2,006,250
Mr. Mikkilineni22,000$2,942,50033% in 3 years; 33% in 5 years; 34% in 7 years$1,471,250
Mr. Gautam10,000$1,337,50050% in 3 years; 50% in 5 years$668,750
Mr. CoteNo grant$0 $0
(1)Performance RSUs with 100% of payout tied to Honeywell’s relative TSR performance against Compensation Peer Group over three years, followed by longer-term vesting period.
(2)Based on

The grant date value was determined using a FMV of $133.75, which reflects performance features. Valuation conducted by independent valuation company.Honeywell stock of $155.39 as of the grant date.

(3)Reflects longer time-vesting period. First three years corresponds

The extended vesting period associated with RSUs is designed to strengthen retention. During the relative-TSR performance period.

(4)Reflects annualized value attributed to the 2017 Compensation year by the MDCC. This is the last cycle with this treatment prior to program design changes.
*Prior to adjustment made pursuant to the spinoff of AdvanSix Inc. from Honeywell on October 1, 2016. The impact of this adjustment, and appliedvesting period, dividend equivalents are reflectedwill be earned in the outstanding stock awards reportedform of additional RSU shares based on regular dividends paid by Honeywell, with such additional dividends vesting on the Outstanding Equity Awards table onpage 64.same timing as the underlying RSUs to which they relate. In addition, upon vesting, the NEO must hold the resulting net gain shares for a least one year before being eligible to sell the shares.

Note: Because these equity awards were granted in 2016, the full grant date value was reported as Stock Awards for 2016 in the prior year’s Proxy Statement. Amounts are discussed in this CD&A because the MDCC attributes half the value to 2017. Beginning in 2018, as part of the changes to the overall compensation program, this treatment will be discontinued.

2018     |     Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners       |       55

Executive Compensation> Compensation Discussion And Analysis

OTHER COMPENSATION &AND BENEFIT PROGRAMS

IRETIREMENT PLANS

We offer various retirement benefits to our NEOs. Specifically, depending upon when and where they joined the Company, some NEOs may participate in broad-based plans, including a defined benefit pension plan and a 401(k) savings plan that provides matching Company contributions. We also maintain an unfunded supplemental retirement plan to replace the portion of an executive’s pension benefit that cannot be paid under the broad-based plans because of Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”)(IRS) limitations. More information on retirement benefits can be found beginning onpage 67.

70.

INONQUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLANS

Executive officers (including the NEOs) may choose to participate in certain nonqualified deferred compensation plans to permit retirement savings in a tax-efficient manner. Executive officers can elect to defer up to 100% of their annual ICP awards. In addition, executive officers may also participate in the Honeywell Supplemental Savings Plan to defer base salary that cannot be contributed to the Company’s 401(k) savings plan due to IRS limitations. These amounts are matched by the Company only to the extent required to make up for a shortfall in the available match under the 401(k) savings plan due to IRS limitations. Deferred compensation balances earn interest at a fixed rate based on the Company’s 15-year cost of borrowing, which is subject to change on an annual basis. Consistent with the long-term focus of the executive compensation program, matching contributions are treated as if invested in Company Common Stock. These plans are explained in detail beginning onpage 70.

74.

IBENEFITS AND PERQUISITES

Our NEOs are entitled to participate in Honeywell-wide benefits such as life, medical, dental, and accidental death and disability insurance that are competitive with other similarly-sized companies. The NEOs participate in these programs on the same basis as the rest of our salaried employees. We maintain excess liability coverage for executive-level personnel, including the NEOs. Mr. Cote also receives additional life insurance benefits agreed at his time of hire in 2002 to replace lost benefits from his prior employer. Our security policy requires thethat our Chairman and CEO and Executive Chair to use Honeywell aircraft for all air travel (business or personal) to ensure the personal security of these officers and protect the confidentiality of our business. The security plan for the CEOChairman and Executive ChairCEO also provides for home security and back-up power systems.related monitoring. From time to time, we also permit other executive officers to use Honeywell aircraft for personal or business use.

 

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019

59



5606  |       |        Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners     |     2018

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION

AND ANALYSIS

Executive Compensation> Compensation Discussion And Analysis

 

COMPENSATION PRACTICES &AND POLICIES

BEST PRACTICES

The MDCC regularly reviews best practices in governance and executive compensation and has revised Honeywell’s policies and practices over time, as follows:

GOVERNANCE AND EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION POLICIES AND PRACTICES

Shareowner Engagement

Directors and management participate in direct engagement with shareowners.

Upon a Change in Control

 

No excise tax gross-ups for any new officers since 2009.
   
No right to single trigger accelerated vesting of options, RSUs and GPUs.

I  WHAT WE DO

I  WHAT WE DON’T DO

   

LOGO

Pay ICP awards at the time they would typically be paid (no acceleration)for Performance. We closely align pay and base on business performance, rather than target.

Balanced use of Performance Metrics to align pay with performanceas a significant portion of target total direct compensation isat-risk. The MDCC validates this alignment annually and ensures performance-based compensation comprises a significant portion of executive compensation.

 

LOGO

No Excessive Perks. We do not provide perquisites except in cases where there is a compelling business or security reason, nor do we provide gross-ups for officers, except in limited cases for relocation.
Use

LOGO

Robust Performance Goals. We establish clear and measureable goals and targets and hold our executives accountable for achieving specified levels to earn a payout under our incentive plans. We use different sets of operational metrics for ICP and performance-based LTI to drive top and bottom-line growth over multiple time frames, aligned with our goal of sustained long-term performance.

LOGO

No Guaranteed Annual Salary Increases or Bonuses. Annual salary increases are based on evaluations of individual performance and the competitive market. In addition, we do not provide guarantees on bonus payouts.
   
Added three-year relative TSR to performance stock awards beginning in 2016.

Eliminated perquisites

Eliminated annual cash flexible perquisite allowance for executive officers.
   
No tax gross-ups on perquisites for officers and directors.

Compensation Recovery (Clawbacks)

 

LOGO

PermitDouble Trigger in the recaptureEvent of incentive compensation from seniora Change-in-Control (CIC). We have double trigger vesting on equity and severance for CIC; executives will not receive cash severance nor will equity vest in the event of a significant financial restatement.CIC unless accompanied by qualifying termination of employment.

LOGO

No New Excise Tax Gross-Ups and No Accelerated Bonus Payments Upon CIC.We eliminated gross-ups for excise taxes upon a CIC for any new officers since 2009. Plans provide that ICP awards earned in the year of a CIC would be paid at the time they would typically be paid based on business performance rather than target.

   
Permit

LOGO

Maximum Payout Caps for Incentive Plans.Annual cash incentive plan (ICP) and Performance Plan payouts are capped.

LOGO

No Incentivizing of Short-Term Results to the cancellationDetriment of Long-Term Goals and recoveryResults. Pay mix is heavily weighted towards long-term incentives aligned with the interests of gains attributable to equity awards from employees who leaveshareowners.

LOGO

Clawback Practices.We maintain a policy that allows for recoupment of incentive compensation for any significant financial restatement or if an executive leaves the Company to join a competitor.

Stock Ownership and other requirements for executive officers

 

Require executive officers

LOGO

No Excessive Risks.Compensation practices are appropriately structured and avoid incentivizing employees to hold and maintain Common Stock equalengage in value to at least four times their base salary (six times for the CEO).excessive risk-taking.
   
Require executive

LOGO

Robust Stock Ownership Requirements.We require officers to hold themeaningful amounts of stock and require them to hold net shares for one year from vestingexercise or vesting.

LOGO

No Hedging or Pledging.We do not allow hedging or pledging of RSU and PSU grants and the net gain shares from option exercises for at least one year.our stock.
   
Require automatic reinvestment of dividend equivalents on RSU/PSU awards into additional RSUs/PSUs, which vest according to the same schedule as the underlying awards to which they relate.
   
Prohibit granting of

LOGO

Options Granted at FMV.Annual stock options awarded to all executives (including the NEOs) are approved by the MDCC on the same day, with an exercise price no less than the fair market value of Honeywell’s Common Stock on the date of grant.

 
Prohibit

LOGO

No Options Repricing.We prohibit repricing (reduction in exercise price or exchange for cash or other consideration) or reloading of stock options.
   
Prohibit hedging and pledging of shares by our executive officers and directors.

Independent Compensation Consultant

 

LOGO

EmployIndependent Compensation Consultant.We retain an independent compensation consultant on behalf of the MDCC to review and advise the MDCC on executive compensation.compensation matters. The independent consultant attends all MDCC meetings.

LOGO

No Consultant Conflicts.Under the MDCC’s established policy, the compensation consultant cannot provide any other services to Honeywell without the MDCC’s approval. Regular independence reviews are conducted.
   
Prohibit this consultant from performing any other services for Honeywell.
   

Regularly review the independence of any outside advisors as a component of the MDCC’s charter.

60

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019



06  |

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION

AND ANALYSIS

 

Guard the Company against competitive harm

Obtain enhanced restrictive covenants in connection with annual equity grants and certain succession planning actions.

2018     |     Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners       |       57

Executive Compensation> Compensation Discussion And Analysis

RISK OVERSIGHT CONSIDERATIONS

The MDCC believes that balancing the various elements of Honeywell’s executive compensation program:

 

Supports the achievement of competitive revenue, earnings, and cash performance in variable economic and industry conditions without undue risk; and
Mitigates the potential to reward risk-taking that may produce short-term results that appear in isolation to be favorable, but that may undermine the successful execution of the Company’s long-term business strategy and destroy shareowner value.

Supports the achievement of competitive revenue, earnings, and cash performance in variable economic and industry conditions without undue risk; and

 

Mitigates the potential to reward risk-taking that may produce short-term results that appear in isolation to be favorable, but that may undermine the successful execution of the Company’s long-term business strategy and destroy shareowner value.

The following compensation design features guard against unnecessary or excessive risk-taking:

 

RISK OVERSIGHT AND COMPENSATION DESIGN FEATURES

 

Robust processes for developingstrategic and annual operating plans, approval of capital investments, and internal controls over financial reporting and other financial, operational, and compliance policies and practices.

 

Diversity of the Company’s overall portfolio of businesseswith respect to industries and markets served (types, long cyclelong-cycle / short cycle)short-cycle), products and services sold, and geographic footprint.

 

MDCC review and approval of Corporate, SBGcorporate, business and individual executive officer objectivesto ensure that these goals are aligned with the Company’s annual operating and strategic plans, achieve the proper risk /reward balance, and do not encourage unnecessary or excessive risk taking.risk-taking.

 

Executive Compensation features that guard against unnecessary or excessive risk-taking include:

 

Pay mix between fixed and variable, annual and long-term, and cash and equity compensation is designed to encourage strategies and actions that are in the Company’s long-term best interests;
Base salaries are positioned to be consistent with executives’ responsibilities so they are not motivated to take excessive risks to achieve financial security;
Incentive awards are determined based on a review of a variety of performance indicators, thus diversifying the risk associated with any single performance indicator;
Design of long-term compensation program rewards executives for driving sustainable, profitable, growth for shareowners;
Vesting periods for equity compensation awards encourage executives to focus on sustained stock price appreciation; and
Incentive plans are not overly leveraged with maximum payout caps and design features that are intended to balance pay for performance with an appropriate level of risk taking. The MDCC also has discretionary authority to adjust annual ICP payments, which further reduces the potential for negative business risk associated with such plans.

Pay mix between fixed and variable, annual and long-term, and cash and equity compensation is designed to encourage strategies and actions that are in the Company’s long-term best interests;

Base salaries are positioned to be consistent with executives’ responsibilities so they are not motivated to take excessive risks to achieve financial security;

Incentive awards are determined based on a review of a variety of performance indicators, thus diversifying the risk associated with any single performance indicator;

Design of long-term compensation program rewards executives for driving sustainable, profitable, growth for shareowners;

Vesting periods for equity compensation awards encourage executives to focus on sustained stock price appreciation; and

Incentive plans are not overly leveraged with maximum payout caps and have design features that are intended to balance pay for performance with an appropriate level of risk-taking. The MDCC also has some discretionary authority (e.g., 20% of awards) to adjust the annual ICP payments, which further reduces the potential for negative business risk associated with such plans.

 

Adoption of “clawback”clawback policies,which provide for the recoupment of incentive compensation paid to senior executives if there is a significant restatement of Company financial results. “Clawback”Clawback provisions in the Company’s current stock plan also allow the Company to cancel shares or recover gains realized by an executive if non-competition or non-solicitation provisions are violated.

 

Prohibition on hedging and pledging of sharesby our executive officers and directors.

 

Ownership thresholdsin the Company’s stock ownership guidelines for officers that require NEOs to hold shares of Common Stock equal to four times their current annual base salary (six times for the CEO), as detailed in the Stock Ownership Guidelines.

 

Officers must also hold 100% of the net shares from vesting of RSUs, andthe net shares issued from PSUs, and the net gain shares from option exercises for at least one year.

 

Based upon the MDCC’s risk oversight and compensation policies, the risks arising from our compensation policies and practices are not reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on Honeywell’s operations or results. A full discussion of the role of the Board of Directors in the risk oversight process begins onpage 2022 of this proxy statement.Proxy Statement.

 

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019

61



06  |

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION

AND ANALYSIS

ISTOCK OWNERSHIP GUIDELINES

The MDCC believes that our executives more effectively pursue our shareowners’ long-term interests if our executives hold substantial amounts of stock. Accordingly, the MDCC adoptedmaintains minimum stock ownership guidelines in May 2003 for all executive officers.

Under these guidelines, the Chairman and CEO must hold shares of Common Stock equal in value to six times his current annual base salary. Other executive officers are required to own shares equal in value to four times their current base salary. Shares used in determining whether these guidelines are met include shares held personally, equivalent shares held in qualified and nonqualified retirement accounts, outstanding RSUs, and 50% of outstanding Performance Plan PSUs.stock units. All NEOs maintain ownership levels well above these minimum requirements, as shown in the following table.

58       |        Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners     |     2018

Named Executive Compensation> Compensation Discussion And AnalysisOfficers’ Stock Ownership

 

NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICER STOCK OWNERSHIP (3/1/2018)LOGO

Mr. AdamczykOther NEOs (average)*
REQUIRED 6x base payREQUIRED 4x base pay
ACTUAL 20× base payACTUAL 30× base pay*
* Excludes Mr. Cote as Executive Chairman

High levels ofRepresents stock ownership reflect long-term focus and commitmentas of leadership team.

March 1, 2019. Other NEOs (Average) excludes Mr. Szlosek due to his retirement in 2018.

In addition, the stock ownership guidelines require officers to hold for at least one year 100% of the “net shares” obtained from RSUs orthat vest, the “net shares” issued from PSUs, orand the “net gain shares” obtained from the exercise of stock options. “Net shares” means the number of shares issued when RSUs vest or PSUs are earned, less the number of shares withheld or sold to pay applicable taxes. “Net gain shares” means the number of shares obtained from exercising stock options, less the number of shares needed to cover the option exercise price and applicable taxes.

After the one-year holding period, officers may sell net shares or net gain shares; however, after the sale, they must continue to meet the prescribed minimum stock ownership guideline level.

IRECOUPMENT/CLAWBACK

Our Corporate Governance Guidelines provide for the recoupment (or “clawback”)clawback) of incentive compensation paid to senior executives if there is a significant restatement of financial results (a “Restatement”)Restatement). Under the guidelines, the Board can seek recoupment if and to the extent that:

 

(i)the amount of incentive compensation was calculated based upon the achievement of financial results that were subsequently reduced due to a Restatement;
(ii)the senior executive engaged in misconduct; and
(iii)the amount of incentive compensation that would have been awarded to the senior executive had the financial results been properly reported would have been lower than the amount actually awarded.

The amount of incentive compensation was calculated based upon the achievement of financial results that were subsequently reduced due to a Restatement;

 

The senior executive engaged in misconduct; and

The amount of incentive compensation that would have been awarded to the senior executive had the financial results been properly reported would have been lower than the amount actually awarded.

The complete text of the Corporate Governance Guidelines is posted on our website atwww.honeywell.com (see “Investors/Corporate Governance/Guidelines”).

In addition, if during the two-year period following an executive officer’s termination of employment with Honeywell (or one-year period for Mr. James), he or she commences employment with, or otherwise provides services to a Honeywell competitor, without the MDCC’s prior approval, or violates non-solicitation commitments, then the Company reserves the right, for awards issued under the 2003, 2006, 2011, and 2016 Stock Incentive Plans, to:

 

Cancel all unexercised options; and
Recover any gains attributable to options that were exercised, and any value attributable to GPUs, RSUs, and PSUs that were paid, during the period beginning six

Cancel all unexercised options; and

Recover any gains attributable to options that were exercised, and any value attributable to RSUs and Performance Plan awards (including the former Growth Plan) that were paid, during the period beginning 12 months before and ending two years after the executive officer’s termination of employment.

62

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019



06  |

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION

AND ANALYSIS

 

We have entered into non-competition agreements with our executive officers that preclude them from going to work for a competitor for up to two years after termination of employment. The list of competitors and the duration of the non-competition covenant has been tailored, in each case, to the executive officer’s position and the competitive threat this represents. Because money damages cannot adequately compensate Honeywell for violations of these non-competition covenants, we have a full range of equitable remedies at our disposal to enforce these agreements, including the ability to seek injunctive relief.

ITAX DEDUCTIBILITY OF EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Beginning in 2018, Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code limits the federal income tax deduction for annual individual compensation to $1 million for the NEOs, subject to a transition rule for written binding contracts in effect on November 2, 2017 and not materially modified after that date. In the past, Section 162(m)’s deduction limit included an exception for “performance-based” compensation. The Company’s compensation programs were generally designed to qualify for this performance-based exception. To accomplish this, the Company previously asked shareholdersshareowners to approve equity and incentive compensation plans that included limitations and provisions required to be included under Section 162(m). Now that the performance-based compensation exception is no longer available, the Company will no longer include Section 162(m)-related limitations or provisions or request shareholdershareowner approval for this purpose, and may not generally attempt to meet the requirements previously included in our plans related to the exception; however, the Company intends to comply with the transition rule for written binding contracts in effect on November 2, 2017 for written binding contracts as long as the CommitteeMDCC determines that to be in the Company’s best interest.

2018     |     Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners       |       59

Executive Compensation> Compensation Discussion And Analysis

IPLEDGING AND HEDGING TRANSACTIONS IN COMPANY SECURITIES

Executive officers, directors and directorsany of their designees are prohibited from pledging Honeywell’s securities or using Honeywell’s securities to support margin debt. All other employees must exercise extreme caution in pledging Honeywell’s securities or using Honeywell’s securities to support margin debt.

Hedging by directors, executive officers, and employees on our restricted trading list, any employee in possession of material non-public information, or any of their designees is prohibited, and it is strongly discouraged for all other employees. For this purpose, hedging means purchasing financial instruments (including prepaid variable forward sale contracts, equity swaps, collars, and interests in exchange funds) or otherwise engaging in transactions that are designed to hedge or offset any decrease in the market value of Company stock held, directly or indirectly by them, whether the stock was acquired as part of a compensation arrangement or otherwise.

All employees, directors and directorsany of their designees are prohibited from engaging in short sales of Honeywell securities. Also, sellingSelling or purchasing puts or calls or otherwise trading in or writing options on Honeywell’s securities by employees, officers and directors is also prohibited.

MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT AND COMPENSATION COMMITTEE REPORT

The MDCC reviewed and discussed Honeywell’s Compensation Discussion and Analysis with management. Based on this review and discussion, the MDCC recommended that the Board of Directors include the Compensation Discussion and Analysis in this proxy statementProxy Statement and the Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017.2018.

The Management Development and Compensation Committee

D. Scott Davis, Chair(Chair)

Duncan B. Angove

William S. Ayer

Clive Hollick

Grace D. Lieblein

Bradley T. Sheares

Jaime Chico Pardo
((ex officio member)

 

60       |        

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners     Statement  |2018  2019

63



07  |

EXECUTIVE

COMPENSATION TABLES

Executive Compensation> Summary Compensation Table

 

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION TABLES

SUMMARY COMPENSATION TABLE

 

Named Executive Officer
and Principal Position
Year Salary($) Bonus($)(2) Stock
Awards($)(3)
 Option
Awards
($)(4)
 Non-
Equity
Incentive
Plan
Compen-
sation($)(5)
 Change in
Pension
Value and
Nonqualified
Deferred
Compensation
Earnings($)(6)
 All
Other
Compen-
sation($)(7)
 SEC
Total
Compensation
 
Darius Adamczyk(1)
President & ChiefExecutive Officer(April 2017)
2017 $1,414,615 $0 $5,254,000 $3,596,400 $5,723,000 $307,401 $204,737 $16,500,153 
2016 $1,120,383 $1,450,000 $3,343,750 $3,896,000 $0 $349,933 $95,888 $10,255,954 
Thomas A. Szlosek
Senior Vice President,Chief Financial Officer
2017 $865,039 $0 $2,101,600 $1,798,200 $2,475,000 $220,964 $76,966 $7,537,769 
2016 $840,000 $850,000 $2,675,000 $2,337,000 $0 $240,715 $51,400 $6,994,115 
2015 $829,077 $850,000 $0 $2,153,750 $3,000,000 $200,277 $56,812 $7,089,916 
Timothy O. Mahoney
President & ChiefExecutive Officer, Aerospace
2017 $963,615 $0 $2,232,950 $2,064,600 $2,440,000 $1,383,760 $58,817 $9,143,742 
2016 $917,019 $850,000 $4,012,500 $2,726,500 $0 $998,274 $56,021 $9,560,314 
2015 $907,462 $900,000 $0 $3,015,250 $3,725,000 $924,036 $55,448 $9,527,196 
Krishna Mikkilineni(1)
Senior Vice President,Engineering,
Operations
& Information Technology
2017 $785,769 $0 $1,970,250 $1,798,200 $2,015,000 $1,869,471 $48,146 $8,486,836 
2016 $717,678 $725,000 $2,942,500 $2,181,200 $0 $1,183,040 $43,915 $7,793,333 
Rajeev Gautam(1)
President & ChiefExecutive Officer, PMT
2017 $717,885 $0 $1,576,200 $1,165,500 $2,585,000 $575,729 $44,073 $6,664,387 
David M. Cote
Chairman of theBoard and FormerChief Executive Officer
2017 $900,962 $0 $0 $9,990,000 $8,645,000 $788,013 $631,564 $20,955,539 
2016 $1,890,000 $5,700,000 $0 $9,348,000 $0 $3,632,959 $690,542 $21,261,501 
2015 $1,890,000 $5,700,000 $0 $10,338,000 $14,250,000 $1,421,493 $927,851 $34,527,344 
                                     

Named

Executive

Officer

 Year  

Salary

($)

  Bonus
($)(2)
  Stock
Awards
($)(3)
  Option
Awards
($)(4)
  Non-Equity
Incentive Plan
Compensation
($)(5)
  Change In
Pension
Value and
Nonqualified
Deferred
Compensation
Earnings ($)(6)
  All Other
Compensation
($)(7)
  SEC Total
Compensation
 
                                     

 

 

Darius Adamczyk

Chairman and

Chief Executive Officer

 

 

2018

 

 

$

1,571,154

 

 

$

—  

 

 

$

9,561,215

 

 

$

3,185,655

 

 

 

$4,100,000

 

 

 

$   595,082

 

 

 

$233,498

 

 

 

$19,246,604

 

 

 

2017

 

 

$

1,414,615

 

 

$

—  

 

 

$

5,254,000

 

 

$

3,596,400

 

 

 

$5,723,000

 

 

 

$   307,401

 

 

 

$204,737

 

 

 

$16,500,153

 

 

 

2016

 

 

$

1,120,383

 

 

$

1,450,000

 

 

$

3,343,750

 

 

$

3,896,000

 

 

 

$         —  

 

 

 

$   349,933

 

 

 

$  95,888

 

 

 

$10,255,954

 

 

Gregory P. Lewis(1)

Senior Vice President,

Chief Financial Officer

 

 

2018

 

 

$

578,981

 

 

$

—  

 

 

$

554,742

 

 

$

591,250

 

 

 

$   730,000

 

 

 

$   103,155

 

 

 

$  48,365

 

 

 

$  2,606,493

 

         
                                    

 

Timothy O. Mahoney

President and

Chief Executive Officer,

Aerospace

 

 

2018

 

 

$

992,788

 

 

$

—  

 

 

$

4,579,898

 

 

$

1,523,060

 

 

 

$1,840,000

 

 

 

$   106,968

 

 

 

$  90,491

 

 

 

$  9,133,205

 

 

 

2017

 

 

$

963,615

 

 

$

—  

 

 

$

2,232,950

 

 

$

2,064,600

 

 

 

$2,440,000

 

 

 

$1,383,760

 

 

 

$  58,817

 

 

 

$  9,143,742

 

 

 

2016

 

 

$

917,019

 

 

$

850,000

 

 

$

4,012,500

 

 

$

2,726,500

 

 

 

$         —  

 

 

 

$   998,274

 

 

 

$  56,021

 

 

 

$  9,560,314

 

 

Krishna Mikkilineni

Senior Vice President,

Engineering and

Information Technology

 

 

2018

 

 

$

810,673

 

 

$

—  

 

 

$

3,937,304

 

 

$

1,307,845

 

 

 

$   930,000

 

 

 

$   801,272

 

 

 

$  55,593

 

 

 

$  7,842,687

 

 

 

2017

 

 

$

785,769

 

 

$

—  

 

 

$

1,970,250

 

 

$

1,798,200

 

 

 

$2,015,000

 

 

 

$1,869,471

 

 

 

$  48,146

 

 

 

$  8,486,836

 

 

 

2016

 

 

$

717,678

 

 

$

725,000

 

 

$

2,942,500

 

 

$

2,181,200

 

 

 

$         —  

 

 

 

$1,183,040

 

 

 

$  43,915

 

 

 

$  7,793,333

 

 

Mark R. James(1)

Senior Vice President,

Human Resources,

Security and Communications

 

 

2018

 

 

$

774,231

 

 

$

—  

 

 

$

3,519,537

 

 

$

1,173,040

 

 

 

$1,080,000

 

 

 

$   426,688

 

 

 

$  53,150

 

 

 

$  7,026,646

 

         
                                    

 

Thomas A. Szlosek

Retired

Chief Financial Officer

 

 

2018

 

 

$

560,481

 

 

$

—  

 

 

$

4,050,122

 

 

$

1,348,050

 

 

 

$         —  

 

 

 

$   229,616

 

 

 

$  15,135

 

 

 

$  6,203,404

 

 

 

2017

 

 

$

865,039

 

 

$

—  

 

 

$

2,101,600

 

 

$

1,798,200

 

 

 

$2,475,000

 

 

 

$   220,964

 

 

 

$  76,966

 

 

 

$  7,537,769

 

 

 

2016

 

 

$

840,000

 

 

$

850,000

 

 

$

2,675,000

 

 

$

2,337,000

 

 

 

$         —  

 

 

 

$   240,715

 

 

 

$  51,400

 

 

 

$  6,994,115

 

 

Footnotes to Summary Compensation Table:

(1)Mr. Gautam first

Messrs. Lewis and James being reported as NEO for 2017 compensation year. Messrs. Adamczyk and Mikkilinenithe first reported as NEOstime in 2019 (2018 compensation). Mr. Lewis became CFO of the Company mid-year.

(2)

Amount for 2016 compensation year (2017 proxy filing).

(2)Amounts for 2015 and 2016 reflectreflects ICP awardsaward in year earned. For 2018 and 2017, annual ICP awards are included as Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation (see note 5 below) as awards were determined under a pre-set formulaic methodology beginning in 2017.methodology.

(3)2017

2018 Stock Awards represent the sum of (i) PSU awards under the 2017-20192018-2020 Performance Plan at a grant date fair value of $131.35. This$163.48 and (ii) RSUs awarded at grant date price of $155.39. The PSU award value was calculated based on the weighted average of (a) the fair market value of Honeywell stock on the date of grant (February 28, 2017)27, 2018) for the three quarters of the award tied to performance against internal metrics, and (b) a multifactor Monte Carlo simulation of Honeywell’s stock price and TSR relative to each of the other companies in the Compensation Peer Group, determined in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718, for the one quarter of the award with payout determined based on three-year TSR relative to the Compensation Peer Group.

                                             

NEO

  

2018-2020

Performance Stock Units

   

Restricted Stock

Units

   

Total Stock

Awards

                                                              
                                             

Mr. Adamczyk

  

 

$6,375,720

 

  

 

$3,185,495

 

  

 

$9,561,215

 

                             

Mr. Lewis

  

 

$           —

 

  

 

$   554,742

 

  

 

$   554,742

 

                             

Mr. Mahoney

  

 

$3,057,076

 

  

 

$1,522,822

 

  

 

$4,579,898

 

                             

Mr. Mikkilineni

  

 

$2,632,028

 

  

 

$1,305,276

 

  

 

$3,937,304

 

                             

Mr. James

  

 

$2,354,112

 

  

 

$1,165,425

 

  

 

$3,519,537

 

                             

Mr. Szlosek

  

 

$2,713,768

 

  

 

$1,336,354

 

  

 

$4,050,122

 

                             

(4)

The 20172018 Option Awards shown reflect the aggregate grant date fair value of the awards computed in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718, using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model at the time of grant, with the expected-term input derived from a risk-adjusted Monte Carlo simulation of the historical exercise behavior and probability-weighted movements in Honeywell’s stock price over time. The 20172018 annual Option Awards were awarded on February 28, 2017,27, 2018, with a Black-Scholes value of $16.65$23.65 per share at the time of grant. A discussion of the assumptions used in the valuation of option awards made in fiscal year 20172018 may be found in Note 1819 of the Notes to the Financial Statements in the Company’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017.2018.

(5)

The 2017 “Non-Equity2018 Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation” valuesCompensation value for each NEO representrepresents their ICP award for the sum of their:

Named Executive Officer 2017 ICP Award(a)  2016-2017
Growth Plan
Earned Award(b)
 
Darius Adamczyk $3,275,000  $2,448,000 
Thomas A. Szlosek $1,100,000  $1,375,000 
Timothy O. Mahoney $1,540,000  $900,000 
Krishna Mikkilineni $915,000  $1,100,000 
Rajeev Gautam $1,040,000  $1,545,000 
David M. Cote $3,420,000  $5,225,000 
(a)2017 ICP based on2018 plan year determined using the pre-set formulaic methodology.
(b)2016-2017 Growth Plan amount reflects total earned amount for full two-year cycle (final cycle).methodology discussed beginning on page 50.

(1) ICP award for the 2017 plan year determined using the pre-set formulaic methodology discussed onpage 44 of the CD&A, and (2) the full earned award under the last cycle of the Growth Plan for the 2016-2017 performance cycle discussed onpages 52-54 of the CD&A, reported in a single year as required by applicable SEC rules. Actual payments of earned Growth Plan awards are made in two equal installments following the performance period. The first 2016-2017 Growth Plan performance cycle payment was made in March 2018 and the second payment will be made in March 2019. The earned award to Mr. Cote is being settled in shares of Common Stock, to be delivered in two installments in March 2018 and March 2019, based on a retroactive decision by the MDCC in 2016 to reduce the portion of his compensation paid in cash.


2018     |     Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners       |       61

Executive Compensation> Summary Compensation Table

(6)

Represents (i) the aggregate change in the present value of each Named Executive Officer’s accumulated benefit under the Company’s pension plans from December 31, 2016,2017, to December 31, 20172018 (as disclosed in the Pension Benefits table onpage 6770 of this proxy statement)Proxy Statement) and (ii) interest earned in 20172018 on deferred compensation that is considered “above-market interest” under SEC rules (as discussed beginning onpage 72 of this proxy statement)75).

64

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019



Named Executive Officer Change in
Pension Value(a)
  NQDC Interest 
Darius Adamczyk $307,401  $0 
Thomas A. Szlosek $196,386  $24,578 
Timothy O. Mahoney $1,308,880  $74,880 
Krishna Mikkilineni $1,869,471  $0 
Rajeev Gautam $575,729  $0 
David M. Cote $0(b) $788,013 
07  |

EXECUTIVE

COMPENSATION TABLES

                                                               

NEO

  Change in
Pension Value(a)
   NQDC Interest(b)   Total Change in Pension
Value and Nonqualified Deferred
Compensation Earnings($)
                                                                                               
                                                               

Mr. Adamczyk

  

 

$593,741

 

  

 

$    1,341

 

  

 

$595,082

 

                                               

Mr. Lewis

  

 

$102,171

 

  

 

$       984

 

  

 

$103,155

 

                                               

Mr. Mahoney

  

 

$         —

 

  

 

$106,968

 

  

 

$106,968

 

                                               

Mr. Mikkilineni

  

 

$792,898

 

  

 

$    8,374

 

  

 

$801,272

 

                                               

Mr. James

  

 

$398,584

 

  

 

$  28,104

 

  

 

$426,688

 

                                               

Mr. Szlosek

  

 

$176,113

 

  

 

$  53,503

 

  

 

$229,616

 

                                               

(a)

Change in aggregate pension value amounts include a change in discount rate from 4.20%3.68% as of December 31, 2016,2017, to 3.68%4.35% at December 31, 2017.

(b)In 2017,2018. The present value of Mr. Cote received a lump-sum distributionMahoney’s aggregate pension value declined by 334,023 in 2018. This reduction was due to him reaching retirement age under the plan, the impact of SERP benefits uponthe December 31, 2015 freeze on final average pay used to determine his “separation from service” as defined underpension amount and the impact of the increase in the underlying SERP and his contractual arrangement. As a result, his Change in Pension Value is shown as zero as SEC rules do not permit the recording of a negative number on the Summary Compensation Table.discount rate.


 (b)

Represents earnings under the Honeywell Salary and Incentive Deferral Plan in excess of that determined using SEC market interest rates.

(7)

For 2017, “All2018, All Other Compensation”Compensation consists of the following:

Item Mr. Adamczyk  Mr. Szlosek  Mr. Mahoney  Mr. Mikkilineni  Mr. Gautam  Mr. Cote 
Excess liability insurance(a) $1,000  $1,000  $1,000  $1,000  $1,000  $1,000 
Executive life insurance(b)                $62,000 
Matching contributions(c) $84,877  $51,902    $57,817       $47,146  $43,073  $40,448 
Personal use of Company aircraft(d) $98,158  $24,064           $430,060 
Security systems(e) $12,284              $72,113 
Tax, legal and financial planning $4,413              $21,186 
Honeywell products/services(f) $4,005              $4,757 
Totals $204,737  $76,966  $58,817  $48,146  $44,073  $631,564 

                                                  

NEO

  Matching
Contributions(a)
   Personal Use of
Company Aircraft(b)
   Security
Systems(c)
   Excess Liability
Insurance(d)
   Total Other
Compensation
                                                                         
                                                  

Mr. Adamczyk

  

 

$105,942

 

  

 

$125,356

 

  

 

$1,200

 

  

 

$1,000

 

  

 

$233,498

 

                        

Mr. Lewis

  

 

$  39,183

 

  

 

$    8,182

 

  

 

$     —

 

  

 

$1,000

 

  

 

$  48,365

 

                        

Mr. Mahoney

  

 

$  66,870

 

  

 

$  22,621

 

  

 

$     —

 

  

 

$1,000

 

  

 

$  90,491

 

                        

Mr. Mikkilineni

  

 

$  54,593

 

  

 

$         —

 

  

 

$     —

 

  

 

$1,000

 

  

 

$  55,593

 

                        

Mr. James

  

 

$  52,150

 

  

 

$         —

 

  

 

$     —

 

  

 

$1,000

 

  

 

$  53,150

 

                        

Mr. Szlosek

  

 

$  14,135

 

  

 

$         —

 

  

 

$     —

 

  

 

$1,000

 

  

 

$  15,135

 

                        

 (a)Represents the annual premiums paid by the Company to purchase excess liability insurance coverage for each Named Executive Officer.
(b)Under the terms of Mr. Cote’s 2002 employment agreement, the Company is obligated to provide Mr. Cote with $10 million in life insurance coverage at the Company’s cost. The Company reimbursed Mr. Cote a total of $62,000 for life insurance premiums paid by him in 2017.
(c)

Represents total Company matching contributions to each Named Executive Officer’s accounts in the tax-qualified Honeywell Savings and Ownership Plan and the non-tax-qualified Supplemental Savings Plan.

 (d)(b)

For security reasons, Messrs. Cote andMr. Adamczyk areis required by Company policy to use Company aircraft for all business and personal travel (in the case of Mr. Adamczyk, the requirement(requirement to use Company aircraft for specific personal travel may be waived at the discretion of Honeywell’s security personnel). Other NEOs may have access to available corporate aircraft for personal travel, from time to time, if approved by the CEO. The amount shown for each Named Executive OfficerNEO represents the aggregate incremental cost of personal travel by the Named Executive Officer.travel. This amount is calculated by multiplying the total number of personal flight hours by the average direct variable operating costs (e.g., expenses for aviation employees, variable aircraft maintenance, telecommunications, transportation charges, including but not limited to hangar and landing fees, aviation fuel, and commissaries) per flight hour for Company aircraft. In 2017, 95% of the use of Company aircraft was for business purposes.

 (e)(c)

In accordance with the Company’s CEO and Executive Chairman security plan, represents the total cost paid by the Company in 20172018 for equipment, installation, and expenses relating to personal residential security provided to protect Messrs. Adamczyk and Cote.Mr. Adamczyk.

 (f)(d)

Represents the incremental cost of Honeywell products and services providedannual premiums paid by the Company to purchase excess liability insurance coverage for personal use.each Named Executive Officer.

 

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019

65



6207  |       |        Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners     |     2018

EXECUTIVE

COMPENSATION TABLES

Executive Compensation> Grants of Plan-Based Awards

 

OTHER COMPENSATION TABLES

|GRANTS OF PLAN-BASED AWARDS—FISCAL YEAR 20172018

 

                  All Other       
                  Option   Closing   
                  Awards: Exercise Price on   
      Estimated Future Estimated Future Number of or Base Date of Grant Date 
      Payouts Under Non-Equity Payouts Under Equity Securities Price Grant of Fair Value 
      Incentive Plan Awards Incentive Plan Awards(3) Underlying of Option Option of Stock 
Named Award Grant Threshold Target Maximum Threshold Target Maximum Options Awards Awards and Option 
Executive Officer Type(1) Date ($)(2) ($) ($) (#)(2) (#) (#) (#)(4) ($/Sh) ($/Sh) Awards(5) 
Darius Adamczyk ICP   $499,397 $2,496,986 $4,993,972               
  NQSO Feb 28 2017             216,000 $124.99 $124.50 $3,596,400 
  PSU Feb 28 2017       2,500 40,000 80,000       $5,254,000 
Thomas A. Szlosek ICP   $173,293 $866,466 $1,732,932               
  NQSO Feb 28 2017             108,000 $124.99 $124.50 $1,798,200 
  PSU Feb 28 2017       1,000 16,000 32,000       $2,101,600 
Timothy O. Mahoney ICP   $222,007 $1,110,034 $2,220,068               
  NQSO Feb 28 2017             124,000 $124.99 $124.50 $2,064,600 
  PSU Feb 28 2017       1,063 17,000 34,000       $2,232,950 
Krishna P. Mikkilineni ICP   $157,562 $787,808 $1,575,616               
  NQSO Feb 28 2017             108,000 $124.99 $124.50 $1,798,200 
  PSU Feb 28 2017       938 15,000 30,000       $1,970,250 
Rajeev Gautam ICP   $143,781 $718,904 $1,437,808               
  NQSO Feb 28 2017             70,000 $124.99 $124.50 $1,165,500 
  PSU Feb 28 2017       750 12,000 24,000       $1,576,200 
David M. Cote(6) ICP   $2,850,000 $2,850,000 $5,700,000               
  NQSO Feb 28 2017             600,000 $124.99 $124.50 $9,990,000 
                                               
          Estimated Future Payouts Under
Non-Equity Incentive Plan Awards
     Estimated Future Payouts Under
Equity Incentive Plan Awards(3)
  

All Other

Option

Awards:

Number of
Securities
Underlying
Options(4)

  Exercise
or Base
Price
of Option
Awards
($/Sh)
  

Closing

Price on

Date of
Grant of
Option
Awards
($/Sh)

  Grant Date
Fair Value
of Stock
and
Option
Awards(5)
 
                            
          

Named

Executive

Officer

 Award
Type(1)
 Grant
Date
  Units
(#)
  Threshold
($)(2)
  

Target

($)

  Maximum
($)
     Threshold
(#)
  Target
(#)
  Maximum
(#)
 
                                                       

Darius

Adamczyk

 

ICP

         

 

$  27,573

 

 

$

2,757,328

 

 

$

5,514,656

 

                                
 

NQSO

 

 

2/27/2018

 

                                 

 

134,700

 

 

 

$155.39

 

 

 

$153.92

 

 

$

3,185,655

 

 

PSU

 

 

2/27/2018

 

                     

 

2,438

 

 

 

39,000

 

 

 

78,000

 

             

$

6,375,720

 

 

RSU

 

 

2/27/2018

 

                     

 

20,500

 

 

 

20,500

 

 

 

20,500

 

             

$

3,185,495

 

 

Gregory P.

Lewis

 

ICP

         

 

$    4,915

 

 

$

491,465

 

 

$

982,930

 

                                
 

PCU

 

 

2/27/2018

 

 

 

5,250

 

 

 

$262,500

 

 

$

525,000

 

 

$

1,050,000

 

                                
 

NQSO

 

 

2/27/2018

 

                                 

 

25,000

 

 

 

$155.39

 

 

 

$153.92

 

 

$

591,250

 

 

RSU

 

 

2/27/2018

 

                     

 

3,570

 

 

 

3,570

 

 

 

3,570

 

             

$

554,742

 

 

Timothy O.

Mahoney

 

ICP

         

 

$  11,430

 

 

$

1,142,990

 

 

$

2,285,980

 

                                
 

NQSO

 

 

2/27/2018

 

                                 

 

64,400

 

 

 

$155.39

 

 

 

$153.92

 

 

$

1,523,060

 

 

PSU

 

 

2/27/2018

 

                     

 

1,169

 

 

 

18,700

 

 

 

37,400

 

             

$

3,057,076

 

 

RSU

 

 

2/27/2018

 

                     

 

9,800

 

 

 

9,800

 

 

 

9,800

 

             

$

1,522,822

 

 

Krishna

Mikkilineni

 

ICP

         

 

$    8,113

 

 

$

811,342

 

 

$

1,622,684

 

                                
 

NQSO

 

 

2/27/2018

 

                                 

 

55,300

 

 

 

$155.39

 

 

 

$153.92

 

 

$

1,307,845

 

 

PSU

 

 

2/27/2018

 

                     

 

1,006

 

 

 

16,100

 

 

 

32,200

 

             

$

2,632,028

 

 

RSU

 

 

2/27/2018

 

                     

 

8,400

 

 

 

8,400

 

 

 

8,400

 

             

$

1,305,276

 

 

Mark R.

James

 

ICP

         

 

$    7,751

 

 

$

775,123

 

 

$

1,550,246

 

                                
 

NQSO

 

 

2/27/2018

 

                                 

 

49,600

 

 

 

$155.39

 

 

 

$153.92

 

 

$

1,173,040

 

 

PSU

 

 

2/27/2018

 

                     

 

900

 

 

 

14,400

 

 

 

28,800

 

             

$

2,354,112

 

 

RSU

 

 

2/27/2018

 

                     

 

7,500

 

 

 

7,500

 

 

 

7,500

 

             

$

1,165,425

 

 

Thomas A.

Szlosek

 

NQSO

 

 

2/27/2018

 

                                 

 

57,000

 

 

 

$155.39

 

 

 

$153.92

 

 

$

1,348,050

 

 

PSU

 

 

2/27/2018

 

                     

 

1,038

 

 

 

16,600

 

 

 

33,200

 

             

$

2,713,768

 

 

RSU

 

 

2/27/2018

 

                     

 

8,600

 

 

 

8,600

 

 

 

8,600

 

             

$

1,336,354

 

(1)

Award Type:

    

ICP = Incentive Compensation Plan (Annual Bonus Paid in 2018,2019, for 20172018 Performance Year)

    

NQSO = Nonqualified Stock Option

    

PSU = Performance Stock Unit (3-year Performance Plan award)

PCU = Performance Cash Unit (3-year Performance Plan award)

RSU = Restricted Stock Unit

(2)

Represents the minimum level of performance that must be achieved for any amount to be payable.

(3)

The amount in the Target column represents the number of PSUs or RSUs awarded to the Named Executive Officer in 20172018 under the 2016 SIP.Stock Incentive Plan. Actual earned award may range from 0% to 200% based on performance over a three-year performance period ending December 31, 2019.2020. Awards vest 100% in February 2020.2021. 50% of the total number of PSUs earned will be converted to, and paid in, cash. 50% of the earned PSUs shall be paid in shares subject to a minimum one-year holding period.

(4)

NQSO awards in this column represent the number of annual stock options awarded to the Named Executive Officers on the grant date. These stock options vest in equal annual instalmentsinstallments over a period of four years.

(5)

The grant date fair value of each NQSO in this column was $16.65,$23.65, calculated in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718, using the Black-Scholes option valuation model at the time of grant. The grant date fair value of each PSU was $163.48 which was determined based on the fair market value of Honeywell stock on the date of grant of $155.39 for the three internal financial metrics, and a value of $187.75 for the relative TSR metric, based on a multifactor Monte Carlo simulation conducted by an independent valuation service provider. The grant date fair value of each RSU was $155.39 based on the FMV of Honeywell stock on the grant date.

(6)

66

Threshold

LOGO

|  Notice and Target ICP award for Mr. Cote equal to 50% of his prior year actual ICP award under the terms of the 2016 CEO Continuity Agreement.Proxy Statement  |  2019



07  |

EXECUTIVE

COMPENSATION TABLES

 

DESCRIPTION OF PLAN-BASED AWARDS

Description of Plan-Based Awards

All NQSO, PSU, PCU and RSU awards granted to the Named Executive Officers in fiscal year 20172018 were granted under the Company’s 2016 Stock Incentive Plan and are governed by and subject to the terms and conditions of the 2016 Stock Incentive Plan and the relevant award agreements. A detailed discussion of these long-term incentive awards can be found beginning onpage 5156 of this proxy statement.Proxy Statement.

2018     |     Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners       |       63

Executive Compensation>Impact of 2018 Spins On Outstanding Equity Awards

Effective October 1, 2018, Honeywell completed the spin of its wholly owned subsidiary, Garrett Motion Inc. (Garrett) to holders of record of Honeywell common stock as of 5:00 p.m. EDT on September 18, 2018. In accordance with the terms of the underlying Stock Incentive Plans, outstanding NQSOs (Option Awards) and unvested and deferred RSUs and PSUs (Stock Awards) that were outstanding as of the October 1, 2018 distribution date were adjusted to preserve their pre–spin economic value. Each outstanding Option Award and Stock Award was adjusted upward by multiplying the number outstanding before the spin by an adjustment ratio of 1.011243. Outstanding Option Award exercise prices were adjusted downward on a grant-by-grant basis, by dividing the exercise price before the spin by an adjustment ratio of 1.011243.

Similarly, effective October 29, 2018, Honeywell completed the spin of its wholly owned subsidiary, Resideo Technologies, Inc. (Resideo) to holders of record of Honeywell common stock as of 5:00 p.m. EDT on October 16, 2018. In accordance with the terms of the underlying Stock Incentive Plans, outstanding NQSOs (Option Awards) and unvested and deferred RSUs and PSUs (Stock Awards) that were outstanding as of the October 29, 2018 distribution date were adjusted to preserve their pre-spin economic value. Each outstanding Option Award and Stock Award was adjusted upward by multiplying the number outstanding before the spin by an adjustment ratio of 1.032827. Outstanding Option Award exercise prices were adjusted downward on a grant-by-grant basis, by dividing the exercise price before the spin by an adjustment ratio of 1.032827.

The number of securities, shares or units underlying unexercised Option Awards and Stock Awards that have not vested, as well as the Option Award exercise prices, listed on the following Outstanding Equity Awards at 2018 Fiscal Year-End table, includes the impact of the adjustments made in the fourth quarter of 2018 for both the Garrett and Resideo spins.

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019

67



07  |

EXECUTIVE

COMPENSATION TABLES

 

IOUTSTANDING EQUITY AWARDS AT 20172018 FISCAL YEAR-END

 

   Option Awards Stock Awards
   Number of Number of     Number of Market Value 
   Securities Securities Shares or of Shares                                   
   Underlying Underlying Units of or Units        

Option Awards

 

         Stock Awards 
   Unexercised Unexercised Option Option Stock That of Stock                                  
 Grant Options(#) Options(#) Exercise Expiration Have Not That Have                            
Name Year Exercisable Unexercisable Price($) Date Vested(#) Not Vested($)(1)  Grant
Year
     

Number of
Securities
Underlying

Unexercised
Options(#)
Exercisable

     Number of
Securities
Underlying
Unexercised
Options(#)
Unexercisable
     Option
Exercise
Price($)
     Option
Expiration
Date
         Number of
Shares or
Units of
Stock That
Have Not
Vested(#)
     Market
Value of
Shares or
Units of
Stock That
Have Not
Vested($)(1)
 
                                  
Darius Adamczyk 2017 0 216,000(2)$124.99 2/27/2027 40,589(8)6,224,729  

 

2018

 

    

 

 

    

 

140,685

(2) 

 
    

$

148.79

 

    

 

2/26/2028

 

       

 

21,741

(7) 

 
    

$

2,872,421

 

 2016 25,143 75,429(3)$112.18 4/3/2026    

 

2018

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

                 

 

41,360

(8) 

 
    

$

5,464,483

 

 2016 37,714 113,144(4)$103.07 2/24/2026 25,932(9)3,976,932  

 

2017

 

    

 

56,399

 

    

 

169,199

(3) 

 
    

$

119.69

 

    

 

2/27/2027

 

       

 

43,255

(9) 

 
    

$

5,714,851

 

 2015 75,429 75,429(5)$103.31 2/25/2025    

 

2016

 

    

 

52,520

 

    

 

52,520

(4) 

 
    

$

107.42

 

    

 

4/3/2026

 

       

 

 

    

$

 

 2014 105,601 35,200(6)$93.44 2/26/2024 18,837(10)2,888,842  

 

2016

 

    

 

78,780

 

    

 

78,781

(5) 

 
    

$

98.70

 

    

 

2/24/2026

 

       

 

27,635

(10) 

 
    

$

3,651,136

 

 2013 40,228 0 $69.38 2/26/2023    

 

2015

 

    

 

118,170

 

    

 

39,391

(6) 

 
    

$

98.93

 

    

 

2/25/2025

 

       

 

 

    

$

 

 2012 93,029 0 $59.53 2/28/2022 38,639(11)5,925,677  

 

2014

 

    

 

147,058

 

    

 

 

    

$

89.48

 

    

 

2/26/2024

 

       

 

20,074

(11) 

 
    

$

2,652,177

 

 2011 11,565 0 $56.73 2/24/2021 3,944(12)604,852  

 

2013

 

    

 

42,015

 

    

 

 

    

$

66.43

 

    

 

2/26/2023

 

       

 

 

    

$

 

 2010 5,028 0 $39.95 2/25/2020    

 

2012

 

    

 

97,162

 

    

 

 

    

$

57.00

 

    

 

2/28/2022

 

       

 

41,177

(12) 

 
    

$

5,440,305

 

 Total 393,737 515,202 127,941 $19,621,032  

 

2011

 

    

 

12,078

 

    

 

 

    

$

54.32

 

    

 

2/24/2021

 

       

 

 

    

$

 

Thomas A. Szlosek 2017 0 108,000(2)$124.99 2/27/2027 16,235(8)2,489,800 
 

 

2010

 

    

 

5,250

 

    

 

 

    

$

38.26

 

    

 

2/25/2020

 

       

 

 

    

$

 

 

 

Total

 

    

 

609,432

 

    

 

480,576

 

                 

 

195,242

 

    

$

25,795,373

 

Gregory P. Lewis

 

 

2018

 

    

 

 

    

 

26,110

(2) 

 
    

$

148.79

 

    

 

2/26/2028

 

       

 

3,787

(13) 

 
    

$

500,338

 

 2016 37,714 113,144(4)$103.07 2/24/2026 20,745(9)3,181,453  

 

2017

 

    

 

6,527

 

    

 

19,583

(3) 

 
    

$

119.69

 

    

 

2/27/2027

 

       

 

3,862

(14) 

 
    

$

510,115

 

 2015 62,857 62,858(5)$103.31 2/25/2025    

 

2016

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

                 

 

5,468

(15) 

 
    

$

722,432

 

 2014 75,429 25,143(6)$93.44 2/26/2024 18,113(10)2,777,810  

 

2016

 

    

 

12,603

 

    

 

12,606

(5) 

 
    

$

98.70

 

    

 

2/24/2026

 

       

 

4,469

(16) 

 
    

$

590,444

 

 2013 25,143 0 $73.04 4/8/2023    

 

2015

 

    

 

17,330

 

    

 

5,777

(6) 

 
    

$

98.93

 

    

 

2/25/2025

 

       

 

3,784

(17) 

 
    

$

499,942

 

 2013 40,228 0 $69.38 2/26/2023    

 

2014

 

    

 

21,007

 

    

 

 

    

$

89.48

 

    

 

2/26/2024

 

       

 

 

    

$

 

 2012 100,572 0 $59.53 2/28/2022    

 

2013

 

    

 

6,301

 

    

 

 

    

$

66.43

 

    

 

2/26/2023

 

       

 

4,016

(18) 

 
    

$

530,727

 

 2011 40,228 0 $56.73 2/24/2021    

 

2012

 

    

 

6,301

 

    

 

 

    

$

57.00

 

    

 

2/28/2022

 

       

 

 

    

$

 

 2010 20,114 0 $39.95 2/25/2020    

 

2011

 

    

 

3,675

 

    

 

 

    

$

54.32

 

    

 

2/24/2021

 

       

 

 

    

$

 

 Total 402,285 309,145 55,093 $8,449,063  

 

Total

 

    

 

73,744

 

    

 

64,076

 

                 

 

25,386

 

    

$

3,353,998

 

Timothy O. Mahoney 2017 0 124,000(2)$124.99 2/27/2027 17,250(8)2,645,460  

 

2018

 

    

 

 

    

 

67,261

(2) 

 
    

$

148.79

 

    

 

2/26/2028

 

       

 

10,394

(7) 

 
    

$

1,373,255

 

 2016 44,000 132,001(4)$103.07 2/24/2026 31,117(13)4,772,103  

 

2018

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

                 

 

19,832

(8) 

 
    

$

2,620,204

 

 2015 88,000 88,001(5)$103.31 2/25/2025    

 

2017

 

    

 

32,377

 

    

 

97,133

(3) 

 
    

$

119.69

 

    

 

2/27/2027

 

       

 

18,384

(9) 

 
    

$

2,428,894

 

 2014 132,001 44,000(6)$93.44 2/26/2024 21,735(10)3,333,280  

 

2016

 

    

 

91,910

 

    

 

91,911

(5) 

 
    

$

98.70

 

    

 

2/24/2026

 

       

 

33,162

(19) 

 
    

$

4,381,363

 

 2013 201,144 0 $69.38 2/26/2023    

 

2015

 

    

 

137,866

 

    

 

45,955

(6) 

 
    

$

98.93

 

    

 

2/25/2025

 

       

 

 

    

$

 

 2012 150,858 0 $59.53 2/28/2022 17,272(14)2,648,834  

 

2014

 

    

 

183,821

 

    

 

 

    

$

89.48

 

    

 

2/26/2024

 

       

 

23,164

(11) 

 
    

$

3,060,428

 

 Total 616,003 388,002 87,374 $13,399,677  

 

2013

 

    

 

210,082

 

    

 

 

    

$

66.43

 

    

 

2/26/2023

 

       

 

 

    

$

 

 

 

2012

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

                 

 

18,407

(20) 

 
    

$

2,431,933

 

 

 

Total

 

    

 

656,056

 

    

 

302,260

 

                 

 

123,343

 

    

$

16,296,077

 

Krishna Mikkilineni 2017 0 108,000(2)$124.99 2/27/2027 15,221(8)2,334,293  

 

2018

 

    

 

 

    

 

57,756

(2) 

 
    

$

148.79

 

    

 

2/26/2028

 

       

 

8,908

(7) 

 
    

$

1,176,925

 

 2016 35,200 105,601(4)$103.07 2/24/2026 22,819(9)3,499,522  

 

2018

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

                 

 

17,075

(8) 

 
    

$

2,255,949

 

 2015 55,314 55,315(5)$103.31 2/25/2025    

 

2017

 

    

 

28,199

 

    

 

84,600

(3) 

 
    

$

119.69

 

    

 

2/27/2027

 

       

 

16,220

(9) 

 
    

$

2,142,986

 

 2014 75,429 25,143(6)$93.44 2/26/2024 14,491(10)2,222,340  

 

2016

 

    

 

73,527

 

    

 

73,531

(5) 

 
    

$

98.70

 

    

 

2/24/2026

 

       

 

24,318

(10) 

 
    

$

3,212,894

 

 2013 20,114 0 $73.04 4/8/2023    

 

2015

 

    

 

86,658

 

    

 

28,886

(6) 

 
    

$

98.93

 

    

 

2/25/2025

 

       

 

 

    

$

 

 2013 80,457 0 $69.38 2/26/2023    

 

2014

 

    

 

105,040

 

    

 

 

    

$

89.48

 

    

 

2/26/2024

 

       

 

15,443

(11) 

 
    

$

2,040,329

 

 2012 80,457 0 $59.53 2/28/2022 9,595(14)1,471,489  

 

2013

 

    

 

21,007

 

    

 

 

    

$

69.94

 

    

 

4/8/2023

 

       

 

 

    

$

 

 2011 85,486 0 $56.73 2/24/2021    

 

2013

 

    

 

84,031

 

    

 

 

    

$

66.43

 

    

 

2/26/2023

 

       

 

 

    

$

 

 2010 50,286 0 $39.95 2/25/2020    

 

2012

 

    

 

84,031

 

    

 

 

    

$

57.00

 

    

 

2/28/2022

 

       

 

10,226

(20) 

 
    

$

1,351,059

 

 Total 482,743 294,059 62,126 $9,527,644  

 

2011

 

    

 

89,284

 

    

 

 

    

$

54.32

 

    

 

2/24/2021

 

       

 

 

    

$

 

Rajeev Gautam 2017 0 70,000(2)$124.99 2/27/2027 12,176(8)1,867,311 
 2016 12,571 37,715(7)$113.70 5/1/2026 10,373(13)1,590,803  

 

2010

 

    

 

12,520

 

    

 

 

    

$

38.26

 

    

 

2/25/2020

 

       

 

 

    

$

 

 2016 5,531 16,594(4)$103.07 2/24/2026 3,848(15)590,129  

 

Total

 

    

 

584,297

 

    

 

244,773

 

                 

 

92,190

 

    

$

12,180,143

 

 2015 10,057 10,057(5)$103.31 2/25/2025 3,559(16)545,808 
 2014 12,822 4,275(6)$93.44 2/26/2024   
 2013 8,548 0 $69.38 2/26/2023   
 2012 4,022 0 $59.53 2/28/2022   
 2011  $56.73 2/24/2021 3,944(12)604,852 
 Total 53,551 138,641 33,900 $5,198,903 

 

64       |        

68

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners     Statement  |2018  2019



07  |

EXECUTIVE

COMPENSATION TABLES

Executive Compensation> Outstanding Equity Awards

 

   Option Awards Stock Awards
   Number of Number of     Number of Market Value 
   Securities Securities Shares or of Shares                                   
   Underlying Underlying Units of or Units        Option Awards         Stock Awards 
   Unexercised Unexercised Option Option Stock That of Stock                                  
 Grant Options(#) Options(#) Exercise Expiration Have Not That Have                            
Name Year Exercisable Unexercisable Price($) Date Vested(#) Not Vested($)(1)  Grant
Year
     

Number of
Securities
Underlying

Unexercised
Options(#)
Exercisable

     Number of
Securities
Underlying
Unexercised
Options(#)
Unexercisable
     Option
Exercise
Price($)
     Option
Expiration
Date
         Number of
Shares or
Units of
Stock That
Have Not
Vested(#)
     Market
Value of
Shares or
Units of
Stock That
Have Not
Vested($)(1)
 
David M. Cote 2017 0 600,000(2)$124.99 2/27/2027   
                                  

Mark R. James

 

 

2018

 

    

 

 

    

 

51,803

(2) 

 
    

 

$148.79

 

    

 

2/26/2028

 

       

 

7,954

(7) 

 
    

 

$  1,050,882

 

 2016 150,858 452,576(4)$103.07 2/24/2026    

 

2018

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

                 

 

15,272

(8) 

 
    

 

$  2,017,737

 

 2015 301,717 301,717(5)$103.31 2/25/2025    

 

2017

 

    

 

24,021

 

    

 

72,067

(3) 

 
    

 

$119.69

 

    

 

2/27/2017

 

       

 

14,059

(9) 

 
    

 

$  1,857,475

 

 2014 452,575 150,859(6)$93.44 2/26/2024    

 

2016

 

    

 

63,024

 

    

 

63,024

(5) 

 
    

 

$  98.70

 

    

 

2/24/2026

 

       

 

19,897

(10) 

 
    

 

$  2,628,792

 

 2013 754,293 0 $69.38 2/26/2023    

 

2015

 

    

 

86,658

 

    

 

28,886

(6) 

 
    

 

$  98.93

 

    

 

2/25/2025

 

       

 

 

    

 

$             

 

 2012 704,006 0 $59.53 2/28/2022    

 

2014

 

    

 

105,040

 

    

 

 

    

 

$  89.48

 

    

 

2/26/2024

 

       

 

17,759

(11) 

 
    

 

$  2,346,319

 

 2011 779,436 0 $56.73 2/24/2021    

 

2013

 

    

 

120,797

 

    

 

 

    

 

$  66.43

 

    

 

2/26/2023

 

       

 

 

    

 

$             —

 

 Total 3,142,885 1,505,152    

 

2012

 

    

 

120,797

 

    

 

 

    

 

$  57.00

 

    

 

2/28/2022

 

       

 

13,091

(20) 

 
    

 

$  1,729,583

 

 

 

Total

 

    

 

520,337

 

    

 

215,780

 

                 

 

88,032

 

    

 

$11,630,788

 

Thomas A. Szlosek

 

 

2018

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

                 

 

9,121

(7) 

 
    

 

$  1,205,067

 

 

 

2017

 

    

 

28,199

 

    

 

 

    

 

$119.69

 

    

 

10/5/2021

 

       

 

 

    

 

$             —

 

 

 

2016

 

    

 

78,780

 

    

 

 

    

 

$  98.70

 

    

 

10/5/2021

 

       

 

22,108

(10) 

 
    

 

$  2,920,909

 

 

 

2015

 

    

 

98,475

 

    

 

 

    

 

$  98.93

 

    

 

10/5/2021

 

       

 

 

    

 

$             —

 

 

 

2014

 

    

 

105,040

 

    

 

 

    

 

$  89.48

 

    

 

10/5/2021

 

       

 

19,304

(11) 

 
    

 

$  2,550,444

 

 

 

2012

 

    

 

6,898

 

    

 

 

    

 

$  57.00

 

    

 

10/5/2021

 

       

 

 

    

 

$              -

 

 

 

Total

 

    

 

317,392

 

    

 

 

                 

 

50,533

 

    

 

$  6,676,420

 

(1)

Market value determined using the closing market price of $153.36$132.12 per share of Common Stock on December 31, 2017.2018.

(2)

2018 option grants vest in four installments at the rate of 25% per year. Installments vest on February 27, 2019, February 27, 2020, February 27, 2021, and February 27, 2022.

(3)

2017 option grants vest in four annual installments at the rate of 25% per year. InstallmentsThe first installment vested on February 27, 2018, and will2018. The remaining installments vest on February 27, 2019, February 27, 2020, and February 27, 2021.

(3)(4)

2016 promotional option grant that vests in four annual installments at the rate of 25% per year. The first installmenttwo installments vested on April 4, 2017.2017 and April 4, 2018. The remaining installments will vest on April 4, 2018, April 4, 2019 and April 4, 2020.

(4)(5)

2016 option grants vest in four annual installments at the rate of 25% per year. The first two installments vested on February 25, 2017 and February 25, 2018. The remaining installments will vest on February 25, 2019 and February 25, 2020.

(5)(6)

2015 option grants vest in four annual installments at the rate of 25% per year. The first three installments vested on February 26, 2016, February 26, 2017, and February 26, 2018. The remaining installment will vestvests on February 26, 2019.

(6)(7)2014 option

2018 restricted unit grants will vest in four annual installments at33% on each of February 27, 2020 and February 27, 2022, with the rate of 25% per year. The installments vestedremaining RSUs vesting on February 27, 2015, February 27, 2016, February 27, 2017 and February 27, 2018.

(7)2016 promotional option grant2024. The number of RSUs reflected here include dividend equivalents applied through December 31, 2018 which were reinvested as additional unvested RSUs that vests in four annual installments at the rate of 25% per year. The first installment vested on May 2, 2017. The remaining installments will vest based on May 2, 2018, May 2, 2019 and May 2, 2020.the same vesting schedule of the RSUs to which they relate.

(8)

Represents PSUs issued under the 2018-2020 Performance Plan. Actual payout will be based on final performance against plan metrics for the full 3-year cycle. The number of PSUs reflected here includes dividend equivalents applied on the target number of shares through December 31, 2018 which were reinvested as additional unvested Performance RSUs that will be adjusted and vest on the same basis as the underlying PSUs to which they relate.

(9)

Represents PSUs issued under the 2017-2019 Performance Plan. Actual payout will be based on final performance against plan metrics for the full 3-year cycle. The number of PSUs reflected here includes dividend equivalents applied on the target number of shares through December 31, 20172018 which were reinvested as additional unvested PSUsPerformance RSUs that will be adjusted and vest on the same basis as the underlying PSUs to which they relate.

(9)(10)

100% of these Performance RSUs are subject to an upward or downward adjustment based on Honeywell’s TSR performance relative to the Compensation Peer Group over a three-year period of August 1, 2016-July2016–July 31, 2019. These Performance RSUs also contain extended vesting periods with 33% vesting on July 31, 2019, 33% on July 31, 2021 and 34% on July 31, 2023. The number of Performance RSUs reflected here includes dividend equivalents applied on the target number of shares through December 31, 20172018 which were reinvested as additional unvested Performance RSUs that will be adjusted and vest on the same basis as the underlying Performance RSUs to which they relate.

(10)(11)

33% of these RSUs vested on July 25, 2017. The remaining RSUs will vest on July 25, 2019 and July 25, 2021. RSUs reflected here include dividend equivalents applied through December 31, 201720187 which were reinvested as additional unvested RSUs that will vest based on the same vesting schedule of the RSUs to which they relate.

(11)(12)

33% of these RSUs vested on March 1, 2015 and 33% vested on March 1, 2017. The remaining RSUs will vest March 1, 2019. RSUs reflected here include dividend equivalents applied through December 31, 20172018 which were reinvested as additional unvested RSUs that will vest based on the same vesting schedule of the RSUs to which they relate.

(12)(13)

These RSUs will vest 100% on July 29, 2018.February 27, 2021. RSUs reflected here include dividend equivalents applied through December 31, 20172018 which were reinvested as additional unvested RSUs that will vest based on the same vesting schedule of the RSUs to which they relate.

(13)(14)

These RSUs will vest 100% on February 28, 2020. RSUs reflected here include dividend equivalents applied through December 31, 2018 which were reinvested as additional unvested RSUs that will vest based on the same vesting schedule of the RSUs to which they relate.

(15)

33% of these RSUs will vest on October 3, 2019 and October 3, 2021. The remaining RSUs will vest on October 3, 2023. RSUs reflected here include dividend equivalents applied through December 31, 2018 which were reinvested as additional unvested RSUs that will vest based on the same vesting schedule of the RSUs to which they relate.

(16)

These RSUs will vest 100% on February 25, 2019. RSUs reflected here include dividend equivalents applied through December 31, 2018 which were reinvested as additional unvested RSUs that will vest based on the same vesting schedule of the RSUs to which they relate.

(17)

33% of these RSUs vested on July 31, 2018. The remaining RSUs will vest on July 31, 2020 and July 31, 2022. RSUs reflected here include dividend equivalents applied through December 31, 2018 which were reinvested as additional unvested RSUs that will vest based on the same vesting schedule of the RSUs to which they relate.

(18)

33% of these RSUs vested on April 22, 2016 and 33% vested on April 22, 2018. The remaining RSUs will vest April 22, 2020. RSUs reflected here include dividend equivalents applied through December 31, 2018 which were reinvested as additional unvested RSUs that will vest based on the same vesting schedule of the RSUs to which they relate.

(19)

100% of these Performance RSUs are subject to an upward or downward adjustment based on Honeywell’s TSR performance relative to the Compensation Peer Group over a three-year period of August 1, 2016-July2016–July 31, 2019. These Performance RSUs also contain extended vesting periods with 50% vesting on July 31, 2019, 50% on July 31, 2021. The number of Performance RSUs reflected here includes dividend equivalents applied on the target number of shares through December 31, 20172018 which were reinvested as additional unvested Performance RSUs that will be adjusted and vest on the same basis as the underlying Performance.

(14)(20)

33% of these RSUs vested on July 25, 2015 and July 25, 2017. The remaining RSUs will vest on July 25, 2019. RSUs reflected here include dividend equivalents applied through December 31, 20172018 which were reinvested as additional unvested RSUs that will vest based on the same vesting schedule of the RSUs to which they relate.

(15)100% of these RSUs will vest on February 25, 2019. RSUs reflected here include dividend equivalents applied through December 31, 2017 which were reinvested as additional unvested RSUs that will vest based on the same vesting schedule of the RSUs to which they relate.
(16)100% of these RSUs vested on February 26, 2018. RSUs reflected here include dividend equivalents applied through December 31, 2017 which were reinvested as additional unvested RSUs that will vest based on the same vesting schedule of the RSUs to which they relate.

 

2018

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of ShareownersStatement  |  2019

       |       65

69



07  |

EXECUTIVE

COMPENSATION TABLES

Executive Compensation> Option Exercises and Stock Vested

 

IOPTION EXERCISES AND STOCK VESTED—FISCAL YEAR 20172018

 

  Option Awards  Stock Awards
  Number of Shares     Number of Shares     
  Acquired on  Value Realized  Acquired on  Value Realized 
Named Executive Officer Exercise(#)  on Exercise($)  Vesting(#)  on Vesting($) 
Darius Adamczyk        45,954(1) $5,907,961  
Thomas A. Szlosek        13,227(2) $1,759,492  
Timothy O. Mahoney  422,404(3) $37,894,708   51,173(4) $7,165,357  
Krishna Mikkilneni  13,074(5) $1,137,111   30,672(6) $3,324,834  
Rajeev Gautam        25,091(7) $3,768,982  
David M. Cote  2,564,594(8) $232,727,159        

Number of Shares Acquired on Exercise (#) Columnrepresents the total number of stock options exercised during 2017 before the sale of option shares to cover the option exercise price, transaction costs and applicable taxes.

Value Realized on Exercise ($) Columnrepresents “in the money” value of stock options at exercise calculated as: the difference between the market price at exercise and the exercise price, multiplied by the total number of options exercised. The individual totals may include multiple exercise transactions during the year. Under Honeywell’s Stock Ownership Guidelines, an officer must hold after-tax net gain shares from an options exercise for at least one year before they can be sold (waived upon retirement).

Number of Shares Acquired on Vesting (#) Columnrepresents the total number of RSUs that vested during 2017 before share withholding for taxes and transaction costs, and without considering prior deferral elections.

Value Realized on Vesting ($) Columnrepresents the total value of RSUs at the vesting date calculated at the average of the high and low share price of one share of Common Stock on the day of vesting multiplied by the total number of RSUs that vested. The individual totals may include multiple vesting transactions during the year. Under Honeywell’s Stock Ownership Guidelines, an officer must hold after-tax net shares from an RSU vesting for at least one year before they can be sold (waived upon retirement).

                      
  Option Awards      Stock Awards 
                  
      

Named Executive Officer

 Number of Shares
Acquired on Exercise(#)(1)
  Value Realized
on Exercise($)(2)
      Number of Shares
Acquired on Vesting(#)(3)
  

Value Realized
on Vesting($)(4)

 
                      

Darius Adamczyk

 

 

 

 

 

 

       3,983(5)   

 

$   631,704

 

Gregory P. Lewis

 

 

 

 

 

 

       9,371(6)   

 

$1,443,053

 

Timothy O. Mahoney

 

 

150,858

(7) 

 
 

 

$13,679,728

 

      

 

 

 

 

$            —

 

Krishna Mikkilineni

 

 

40,000

(8) 

 
 

 

$  4,214,112

 

      

 

 

 

 

$            —

 

Mark R. James

 

 

 

 

 

$             —

 

      

 

 

 

 

$            —

 

Thomas A. Szlosek

 

 

229,438

(9) 

 
 

 

$20,911,378

 

      

 

 

 

 

$            —

 

 

(1)

Represents the total number of stock options exercised during 2018 before the sale of option shares to cover the option exercise price, transaction costs and applicable taxes.

(2)

Represents “in the money” value of stock options at exercise calculated as: the difference between the market price at exercise and the exercise price, multiplied by the total number of options exercised. The individual totals may include multiple exercise transactions during the year. Under Honeywell’s Stock Ownership Guidelines, an officer must hold after-tax net gain shares from an options exercise for at least one year before they can be sold (waived upon retirement).

(3)

Represents the total number of RSUs that vested during 2018 before share withholding for taxes and transaction costs, and without considering prior deferral elections.

(4)

Represents the total value of RSUs at the vesting date calculated at the average of the high and low share price of one share of Common Stock on the day of vesting multiplied by the total number of RSUs that vested. The individual totals may include multiple vesting transactions during the year. Under Honeywell’s Stock Ownership Guidelines, an officer must hold after-tax net shares from an RSU vesting for at least one year before they can be sold (waived upon retirement).

(5)

After withholding shares sufficient to cover applicable taxes and fees due upon the vesting of RSUs, Mr. Adamczyk retained a total of 22,5532,057 net shares. Net shares must be held at least one year before they can be sold.

(2)(6)

After withholding shares sufficient to cover applicable taxes and fees due upon the vesting of RSUs, Mr. SzlosekLewis retained a total of 6,4955,670 net shares. Net shares must be held at least one year before they can be sold.

(3)(7)

Relates to stock options originally granted in February 2010 and 20112012 with a ten-year term that would have expired in 2020 and 20212022 if not exercised. In connection with the stock option exercise, shares were withheld to cover the exercise price and the applicable taxes due upon exercise with Mr. Mahoney receiving a total of 146,70436,369 net gain shares. Net gain shares must be held at least one year before they can be sold.

(4)After withholding shares sufficient to cover applicable taxes and fees due upon the vesting of RSUs, Mr. Mahoney retained a total of 14,555 net shares. Net shares must be held at least one year before they can be sold. Payout of 23,970 shares acquired upon the vesting of these RSUs has been deferred and will be paid to Mr. Mahoney in five equal instalments as of a specified future date.
(5)Relates to Stock Appreciation Rights (SAR) originally granted in February 2008 with a ten-year term that would have expired in 2018 if not exercised. Zero shares retained as this was settled in cash.
(6)After withholding shares sufficient to cover applicable taxes and fees due upon the vesting of RSUs, Mr. Mikkilineni retained a total of 11,364 net shares. Net shares must be held at least one year before they can be sold.
(7)After withholding shares sufficient to cover applicable taxes and fees due upon the vesting of RSUs, Mr. Gautam retained a total of 12,312 net shares. Net shares must be held at least one year before they can be sold.
(8)

Relates to stock options originally granted in February 2008, 2009 and 2010 with a ten-year term that would have expired in 2018, 2019, and 2020 if not exercised. In connection with the stock option exercises,exercise, shares were withheld to cover the exercise price and the applicable taxes due upon exercise with Mr. CoteMikkilineni receiving a total of 791,02111,719 net gain shares. Net gain shares must be held at least one year before they can be sold.

(9)

Relates to stock options originally granted in February 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 with a ten-year term that would have expired in 2021 if not exercised.

66       |        Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners     |     2018

Executive Compensation> Pension Benefits

IPENSION BENEFITS

The following table provides summary information about the pension benefits that have been earned by our Named Executive Officers under two pension plans, the Honeywell International Inc. Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (the “SERP”)(SERP) and the Honeywell International Inc. Retirement Earnings Plan (the “REP”)(REP).

Pension Benefits—Fiscal Year 2018

                    

Named Executive Officer

    Plan Name    Number of Years
of Credited Service(#)
     Present Value of
Accumulated Benefits($)(1)
 
                    

Darius Adamczyk

    

REP

    

 

6.7

 

    

 

$   107,225

 

    

SERP

    

 

10.5

 

    

 

$1,514,694

 

     

Total

           

 

$1,621,919

 

Gregory P. Lewis

    

REP

    

 

12.0

 

    

 

$   193,030

 

    

SERP

    

 

12.0

 

    

 

$   328,750

 

     

Total

           

 

$   521,780

 

Timothy O. Mahoney

    

REP

    

 

21.1

 

    

 

$   974,125

 

    

SERP

    

 

21.1

 

    

 

$8,503,805

 

     

Total

           

 

$9,477,930

 

Krishna Mikkilineni

    

REP

    

 

33.1

 

    

 

$1,148,406

 

    

SERP

    

 

33.1

 

    

 

$8,087,464

 

     

Total

           

 

$9,235,870

 

Mark R. James

    

REP

    

 

18.8

 

    

 

$   875,350

 

    

SERP

    

 

18.8

 

    

 

$5,765,395

 

     

Total

           

 

$6,640,745

 

Thomas A. Szlosek

    

REP

    

 

14.3

 

    

 

$   229,853

 

    

SERP

    

 

14.3

 

    

 

$1,130,215

 

     

Total

           

 

$1,360,068

 

(1)

The present value of the accumulated retirement benefit for each Named Executive Officer is calculated using a 4.35% discount rate, the projected RP-2014 post-retirement mortality table using scale MP-2018 and an immediate retirement age for Mr. Mahoney, age 62 for Messrs. Mikkilineni and James, and age 65 for the other Named Executive Officers, the earliest ages at which the Named Executive Officer can retire without an early retirement benefit reduction. Mr. Szlosek will receive a distribution of his SERP benefit in 2019 due to his retirement.

70

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019



07  |

EXECUTIVE

COMPENSATION TABLES

The SERP and REP benefits depend on the length of each Named Executive Officer’s employment with usHoneywell (and companies that have been acquired by us)Honeywell). This information is provided in the table belowabove under the column entitled “Number of yearsYears of credited service.Credited Service.” The column in the table belowabove entitled “Present valueValue of accumulated benefits”Accumulated Benefits” represents a financial calculation that estimates the cash value today of the full pension benefit that has been earned by each Named Executive Officer. It is based on various assumptions, including assumptions about how long each Named Executive Officer will live and future interest rates. Additional details about the pension benefits for each Named Executive Officer follow the table.include:

 

Pension Benefits—Fiscal Year 2017The REP is a tax-qualified pension plan in which a significant portion of our U.S. employees participate.

 

    Number of Years Present Value of 
    of Credited Accumulated 
Named Executive Officer Plan Name Service(#) Benefits($)(1) 
Darius Adamczyk REP 5.7 $89,839 
  SERP 9.5 $938,339 
  Total   $1,028,178 
Thomas A. Szlosek REP 13.6 $214,392 
  SERP 13.6 $969,563 
  Total   $1,183,955 
Timothy O. Mahoney REP 20.1 $1,007,059 
  SERP 20.1 $8,804,894 
  Total   $9,811,953 
Krishna Mikkilineni REP 32.1 $1,152,567 
  SERP 32.1 $7,290,405 
  Total   $8,442,972 
Rajeev Gautam REP 39.3 $1,870,843 
  SERP 39.3 $5,538,373 
  Total        $7,409,216 
David M. Cote REP 15.9 $164,654 
  SERP 15.9 $0 
  Total   $164,654 
(1)The present value of the accumulated retirement benefit for each Named Executive Officer is calculated using a 3.68% discount rate, the projected RP-2014 post-retirement mortality table using scale MP-2017 and a retirement age of 62 for Messrs. Mahoney and Mikkilineni and 65 for the other Named Executive Officers, the earliest ages at which the Named Executive Officer can retire without an early retirement benefit reduction. Mr. Cote received a distribution of his entire SERP benefit in 2017.

The REP complies with tax requirements applicable to broad-based pension plans, which impose dollar limits on the amount of benefits that can be provided. As a result, the pensions that can be paid under the REP for higher-paid employees represent a much smaller fraction of current income than the pensions that can be paid to less highly paid employees. We make up for this difference, in part, by providing supplemental pensions through the SERP.

 

Summary InformationAll SERP benefits will be paid on the first day of the first month that begins following the 105th day after the later of the officer’s separation from service (as that term is defined in Internal Revenue Code Section 409A) or his earliest retirement date.

The REP is a tax-qualified pension plan in which a significant portion of our U.S. employees participate.
The REP complies with tax requirements applicable to broad-based pension plans, which impose dollar limits on the amount of benefits that can be provided. As a result, the pensions that can be paid under the REP for higher-paid employees represent a much smaller fraction of current income than the pensions that can be paid to less highly paid employees. We make up for this difference, in part, by providing supplemental pensions through the SERP.
In addition, Mr. Cote was entitled to an additional supplemental pension benefit described under the Contractual formula below. This supplemental pension benefit was also provided by the SERP and distributed to him in 2017.
All SERP and Contractual benefits will be paid on the first day of the first month that begins following the 105th day after the later of the officer’s separation from service (as that term is defined in Internal Revenue Code Section 409A) or his earliest retirement date.

2018     |     Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners       |       67

Executive Compensation> Pension Benefits

Pension Benefit Calculation Formulas

Within the REP and the SERP, a variety of formulas are used to determine pension benefits. Different benefit formulas apply for different groups of employees for historical reasons. Generally, as we have grown through acquisitions, we have in many cases retained the benefit formulas under pension plans that were maintained by the companies that we acquired, in order to provide continuity for employees. The differences in the benefit formulas for our Named Executive Officers reflect this history. The explanation below describes the formulas that are used to determine the amount of pension benefits for each of our Named Executive Officers under the REP and the SERP.

 

LOGO

Name of Formula|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019

71



07  |  

Benefit CalculationEXECUTIVE

COMPENSATION TABLES

REP  

Name of Formula

Benefit Calculation

REP

Lump sum equal to (1) 6% of final average compensation (annual average compensation for the five calendar years out of the previous ten calendar years that produces highest average) times (2) credited service.

Allied Salaried  

Allied Salaried

Single life annuity equal to (1)(A) 2% of final average compensation (average of compensation for the 60 consecutive months out of prior 120 months that produces highest average) times (B) credited service (up to 25 years), minus (2) 64% of estimated Social Security benefits.

 The final average compensation component of the formula was frozen and no amounts earned or paid after December 31, 2015 will be included, except that the annual incentive compensation paid in 2016 was included in 2015 compensation.

Signal  

Bendix

Single life annuity at age 65 equal to (1)(A) 1.5%the greater of (i) basic formula or (ii) minimum formula, where the basic formula is equal to 2% of final average compensation (averagemultiplied by up to 25 years of credited service plus 0.5% of final average compensation multiplied by years of credited service over 25, minus 2% of estimated Social Security benefit multiplied by up to 25 years of credited service, and the minimum formula is equal to 0.75% of final average compensation plus $8.00, multiplied by up to 30 years of credited service. Final average compensation is the larger of (i) the sum of compensation received for the highest five years divided by 60, or (ii) the highest average of 60 consecutive months out of the lastfinal 120 that producesmonths with short-term incentive compensation included in the highest average) times (B) credited service (with no limit on service), minus (2)(A) 1.5% of estimated Social Security benefits times (B) credited service up to 33 1/3 years.year earned.

 The final average compensation component of the formula was frozen and no amounts earned or paid after December 31, 2015 will be included, except that the annual incentive compensation paid in 2016 was included in 2015 compensation for the portion of the definition that includes earned annual incentive compensation.

Honeywell RetirementBenefit Plan (“HRBP”)  

Honeywell

Retirement Benefit

Plan (HRBP)

Single life annuity at age 67 equal to the sum of (1)(A) 1.0%1% of final average earnings (average earnings for the five calendar years out of the previous ten calendar years that produce highest average) times credited service up to 30 years, plus (B) 1/2400 of final average earnings for up to 60 months if credited service exceeds 360 months; and (2) 0.6% of final average earnings in excess of the covered earnings base (average of taxable wage bases for the 35-year period ending with the participant’s 67th birthday) times credited service up to 30 years.

 The final average earnings component of the formula was frozen and no amounts earned or paid after December 31, 2015 will be included.

 The covered earnings base is calculated using the 2015 taxable wage base for years after 2015.

UOP  Annual amount in single

Signal

 Single life annuity at age 65 equal to the greater(1)(A) 1.5% of (1) and (2), minus (3), where: (1) is 1.2%final average compensation (average of average final compensation (base salary and shift differential for the 3660 consecutive calendar months out of the previouslast 120 consecutive calendar months that produceproduces the highest average) times (B) credited service plus $144,(with no limit on service), minus (2) is 1.5% of average final compensation (base salary, shift differential, overtime, sales commissions, sales bonuses, annual incentive compensation for the 36 consecutive calendar months out of the previous 120 consecutive calendar months that produce the highest average) times credited service, minus(A) 1.5% of estimated Social Security benefitbenefits times (B) credited service (to a maximum of 50%), and (3) is any benefits payable under the Union Carbide Corporation Retirement Program.up to 33 1/3 years.

 The final average final compensation componentscomponent of the formula werewas frozen and no amounts earned or paid after December 31, 2015 will be included, except that the annual incentive compensation paid in 2016 was included in 2015 compensation for purposes of (2).

ContractualFor Mr. Cote, single life annuity equal to 60% of the average of final three years of base salary and bonus. Mr. Cote received a lump sum distribution of his entire SERP benefit in 2017 (including his Contractual benefit).compensation.

For each pension benefit calculation formula listed in the chart above, compensation includes base pay, short-term incentive compensation, payroll-based rewards and recognition and lump sum incentives. Calculations for pension formulas other than the REP and HRBP formulas include the annual incentive compensation in the year earned. The REP and HRBP formulas include annual incentive compensation in the year paid. The amount of compensation taken into account under the REP is limited by tax rules. The amount of compensation taken into account under the SERP and the Contractual formula is not. Except as otherwise described below,with respect to Messrs. Mikkilineni and James, the compensation changes described above for the Allied Salaried, Signal,Bendix, HRBP, and UOPSignal formulas also apply to the compensation taken into account under the SERP.

The benefit formulas above describe the pension benefits in terms of a lump sum cash payment (for the REP formula) or a single life annuity (for the other formulas). Participants are entitled to receive their benefits in other payment forms, including, for example joint and survivor annuities, period certain annuities and level income payments. However, the value of each available payment form is the same. Based on prior elections and SERP terms, Mr. Mikkilineni will receive his SERP benefits in the form of a lump sum, and Messrs. Mahoney and GautamJames will receive their SERP benefits in the form of an annuity.

68       |        Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners     |     2018

Executive Compensation> Pension Benefits

The Allied Salaried formula also provides for early retirement benefits. A participant is eligible for early retirement if the participant’s age and years of service equal or exceed 60 and the participant has attained age 50 with at least five years of service or if the participant’s age and years of service equal or exceed 80 regardless of the participant’s age. If the participant retires early, the participant’s benefit at normal retirement age is reduced by 1/4 of 1% for each month payments begin before age 62 (3% per year). In addition, the Social Security benefit reduction portion of the formula is reduced by 1/180 for each month benefits are paid between ages 60 and 65, and 1/360 for each month benefits are paid before the participant’s 60th birthday.

 

72

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019



07  |

EXECUTIVE

COMPENSATION TABLES

The Bendix formula also provides for early retirement benefits. A participant is eligible for early retirement if the participant has attained age 55 with at least five years of vesting service or he retires after the sum of his age and years of vesting service equal or exceed 80. If the participant retires early, the participant’s early retirement benefit shall be the greater of (1) or (2), where (1) is (A) minus (B), where (A) is the amount determined under the basic formula for up to 25 years of credited service reduced by 1/6 of 1% for each of the first 60 months by which the early retirement date precedes the participant’s 65th birthday and 1/3 of 1% for months that exceed 60, and (B) is the monthly offset determined under the Social Security benefit portion of the basic formula reduced by the factors used to reduce Social Security benefits for early commencement (but only for payments made after the participant’s 62nd birthday, and based on the reduction factors as of the later of age 62 or the participant’s early retirement date); and (2) is the monthly amount determined under the minimum formula reduced by 6/10 of 1% for each of the first 60 months by which the participant’s early retirement date precedes his 65th birthday and by 4/10 of 1% for months that exceed 60. The participant’s benefit shall be the greater of the pre-age 62 and post-age 62 amounts calculated under (1) and (2) above. If a participant retires after he has 80 points, the early retirement benefit shall be determined as above except the total reduction under (1)(A) shall not exceed 25%, and the amount determined under (2), prior to determining the greater pre-age 62 and post-age 62 amounts, shall be increased by $385 per month, payable through the participant’s 62nd birthday with no reduction for commencement before age 65.

The HRBP formula also provides for early retirement benefits. A participant is eligible for early retirement if the participant has attained age 55 with at least ten years of vesting service or he retires after his 65th birthday. If the participant retires early, his age and years of vesting service equal or exceed 85, his unreduced Social Security retirement age is 67 under the formula, and he was born between 1958 and 1960, the participant’s benefit at age 67 is reduced by 0.35% for each full month benefits are paid before the first of the month following the participant’s 66th birthday.

The UOPSignal formula also provides for early retirement benefits. A participant is eligible for early retirement if the participant has attained age 50 with at least ten years of vesting service. If the participant retires early, his accrued benefit (other than the Social Security offset portion) is reduced by 0.33% for each month benefits are paid before the participant’s 60th birthday (4% per year).

As stated above, the pension formula used to determine the amount of pension benefits under each of the plans for our Named Executive Officers differs for historical reasons. Also, additional contractual pension benefits have been provided to certain Named Executive Officers as deemed necessary and appropriate at the time of their recruitment to the Company or to retain the executive. The table below describes which formulas are applicable to each of our Named Executive Officers.

 

Name/Formula

Description of Total Pension Benefits
Mr.

Darius Adamczyk
Total pension benefit =
REP formula benefits

Mr. Adamczyk’s pension benefits under the REP and the SERP are determined under the REP formula, with the SERP benefit calculated using all of his Honeywell employment as credited service.

Mr. Szlosek

Total pension benefit =
REP formula benefits

Gregory P. Lewis

Mr. Szlosek’sLewis’ pension benefits under the REP and the SERP are determined under the REP formula.

Mr. Mahoney
Total pension benefit =

Allied Salaried
REP formula benefits

 

Timothy O. Mahoney

Total pension benefit = Allied Salaried formula benefits

Mr. Mahoney is currently eligible for early retirement benefits payable under the Allied Salaried formula. The value of his benefit payable on December 31, 20172018 does not exceed the benefit shown in the table above.

 

A portion of Mr. Mahoney’s pension benefits under the REP and a portion of his SERP benefits are determined under the Signal formula. These amounts are part of, not in addition to, his Allied Salaried formula benefits.

Mr.

Krishna Mikkilineni

Total pension benefit =

Allied Salaried
formula benefits

 

Mr. Mikkilineni is currently eligible for early retirement benefits payable under the Allied Salaried formula. Due to subsidized early retirement, theThe value of his benefit payable on December 31, 2017 exceeds2018 does not exceed the benefit shown in the table above by $262,029.above.

 

The final average compensation freeze for amounts earned or paid after December 31, 2015 does not apply to the calculation of Mr. Mikkilineni’s SERP benefits.

• A portion of Mr. Mikkilineni’s pension benefits under the REP and a portion of his SERP benefits are determined under the HRBP formula. These amounts are part of, not in addition to, his Allied Salaried formula benefits.

Mr. Gautam

Mark R. James

Total pension benefit =
UOP Allied Salaried formula benefits

Mr. GautamJames is currently eligible for early retirement benefits payable under the UOPAllied Salaried formula. The value of his benefit payable on December 31, 2017 does not exceed2018 exceeds the benefit shown in the table above.above by $387,893.

 A portion of Mr. James’ pension benefits under the REP and a portion of his SERP benefits are determined under the Bendix formula. These amounts are part of, not in addition to, his Allied Salaried formula benefits.

Mr. Cote

Thomas A. Szlosek

Total pension benefit =

Contractual REP formula
benefits

• Due to Mr. Cote’s separation from service on March 31, 2017, Mr. Cote received a lump sum of $75,209,790 in October 2017 representing the present value of Mr. Cote’s pension and surviving spouse benefits under the SERP (including his Contractual benefit).

 

Mr. Cote’s Contractual formula benefit was reduced by amounts calculated under the REP formula and payableSzlosek’s pension benefits under the REP and the SERP plansare determined under the REP formula.

LOGO

|  Notice and amounts he is expected to receive from the retirement plans of his former employer, General Electric Company (approximately $5,649 per month).Proxy Statement  |  2019

73



07  |

EXECUTIVE

COMPENSATION TABLES

 

2018     |     Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners       |       69

Executive Compensation> Nonqualified Deferred Compensation

INONQUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION—FISCAL YEAR 20172018

Since 2005, Honeywell has taken steps to limit deferred compensation amounts owed to executives by reducing the overall interest rate earned on new deferrals and accelerating the payout of deferred amounts, thereby limiting the period over which interest is earned. These include changing the interest rate accruing on new deferrals under the Honeywell Excess Benefit Plan and Honeywell Supplemental Savings Plan (the “SS Plan”)SS Plan) and the Honeywell Salary andDeferred Incentive Award Deferral Plan for Selected Employees (the “DIC Plan”)DIC Plan) from a fixed above-market rate to a rate that changes annually based on the Company’s 15-year cost of borrowing; and requiring payment of the SS Plan or DIC Plan deferrals to begin shortly after termination of employment in a lump sum unless the participant leaves the Company after reaching retirement (age 55 with ten years of service). In addition, cash dividend equivalents on vested deferred RSUs cannot be deferred and dividend equivalents on unvested RSUs are reinvested in additional RSUs and subject to the same vesting schedule as the underlying RSUs.

 

 

Named Executive Officer

  Plan  Executive
Contributions
in Last FY($)(3)
     Registrant
Contributions
in Last FY($)(1) (3)
     Aggregate
Earnings
in Last FY($)(3)
   Aggregate
Withdrawals/
Distributions
($)
     Aggregate
Balance at
Last FYE($)(3)
 
                        

Darius Adamczyk

  

SS Plan(1)

  

 

$107,192

 

    

 

$     92,067

 

    

 

$  (15,875

  

$

                  —

 

    

 

$     804,382

 

  Executive Registrant Aggregate  Aggregate  

DIC Plan

  

 

$         —

 

    

 

$            —

 

    

 

$          —

 

  

$

 

    

 

$              —

 

  Contributions Contributions Earnings Aggregate Balance  

Deferred RSUs(2)

  

 

$         —

 

    

 

$            —

 

    

 

$          —

 

  

$

 

    

 

$              —

 

  in last in last in last Withdrawals/ at last  

Growth Plan(4)

  

 

$         —

 

    

 

$1,224,000

 

    

 

$          —

 

  

$

 

    

 

$  1,224,000

 

Named Executive Officer Plan FY($)(2) FY($)(2) FY($)(2) Distributions ($) FYE($)(2)
Darius Adamczyk SS Plan $95,169 $71,377 $86,823 $0 $702,708
  

Total

  

 

$107,192

 

    

 

$1,316,067

 

    

 

$  (15,875

  

$

 

    

 

$  2,028,382

 

Gregory P. Lewis

  

SS Plan(1)

  

 

$  55,755

 

    

 

$     21,699

 

    

 

$      (478

  

$

 

    

 

$     305,131

 

  

DIC Plan

  

 

$         —

 

    

 

$            —

 

    

 

$     3,709

 

  

$

 

    

 

$     111,610

 

  

Deferred RSUs(2)

  

 

$         —

 

    

 

$            —

 

    

 

$          —

 

  

$

 

    

 

$              —

 

  

Growth Plan(4)

  

 

$         —

 

    

 

$   175,950

 

    

 

$          —

 

  

$

 

    

 

$     175,950

 

  

Total

  

 

$  55,755

 

    

 

$   197,649

 

    

 

$     3,231

 

  

$

 

    

 

$     592,691

 

Timothy O. Mahoney

  

SS Plan(1)

  

 

$302,341

 

    

 

$     51,284

 

    

 

$   54,208

 

  

$

 

    

 

$  4,851,330

 

  

DIC Plan

  

 

$         —

 

    

 

$            —

 

    

 

$ 348,905

 

  

$

 

    

 

$  6,748,257

 

  

Deferred RSUs(2)

  

 

$         —

 

    

 

$            —

 

    

 

(889,669

  

$

 

    

 

$  9,973,893

 

  

Growth Plan(4)

  

 

$         —

 

    

 

$   450,000

 

    

 

$          —

 

  

$

 

    

 

$     450,000

 

  

Total

  

 

$302,341

 

    

 

$   501,284

 

    

 

$(486,556

  

$

 

    

 

$22,023,480

 

Krishna Mikkilineni

  

SS Plan(1)

  

 

$242,839

 

    

 

$     40,021

 

    

 

$   28,425

 

  

$

 

    

 

$  2,038,066

 

  

DIC Plan

  

 

$457,500

 

    

 

$            —

 

    

 

$   32,387

 

  

$

 

    

 

$  2,110,285

 

  

Deferred RSUs(2)

  

 

$         —

 

    

 

$            —

 

    

 

$          —

 

  

$

 

    

 

$               —

 

  

Growth Plan(4)

  

 

$         —

 

    

 

$   550,000

 

    

 

$          —

 

  

$

 

    

 

$     550,000

 

  

Total

  

 

$700,339

 

    

 

$   590,021

 

    

 

$   60,812

 

  

$

 

    

 

$  4,698,352

 

Mark R. James

  

SS Plan(1)

  

 

$  73,562

 

    

 

$     37,927

 

    

 

$     8,740

 

  

$

 

    

 

$  2,427,690

 

  

DIC Plan

  

 

$         —

 

    

 

$            —

 

    

 

$   78,574

 

  

$

 

    

 

$  1,923,449

 

 DIC Plan $0 $0 $0 $0 $0  

Deferred RSUs(2)

  

 

$         —

 

    

 

$            —

 

    

 

$          —

 

  

$

 

    

 

$               —

 

 Deferred RSUs(1) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0  

Growth Plan(4)

  

 

$         —

 

    

 

$   550,000

 

    

 

$          —

 

  

$

 

    

 

$     550,000

 

 Total $95,169 $71,377 $86,823 $0 $702,708  

Total

  

 

$  73,562

 

    

 

$   587,927

 

    

 

$   87,314

 

  

$

 

    

 

$  4,901,139

 

Thomas A. Szlosek SS Plan $267,463 $38,402 $219,264 $0 $3,230,458  

SS Plan(1)

  

 

$159,680

 

    

 

$       3,534

 

    

 

$   45,337

 

  

$

 

    

 

$  3,439,009

 

 DIC Plan $425,000 $0 $189,280 $0 $5,596,974  

DIC Plan

  

 

$550,000

 

    

 

$            —

 

    

 

$ 249,915

 

  

$

 

    

 

$  6,396,888

 

 Deferred RSUs(1) $0 $0 $1,718,526 $0 $6,945,214  

Deferred RSUs(2)

  

 

$         —

 

    

 

$            —

 

    

 

$(670,682

  

$

 

    

 

$  6,274,532

 

 Total $692,463 $38,402 $2,127,070 $0 $15,772,647  

Growth Plan(4)

  

 

$         —

 

    

 

$            —

 

    

 

$           —

 

  

$

 

    

 

$               —

 

Timothy O. Mahoney SS Plan $299,993 $43,538 $373,604 $0 $4,490,843
 DIC Plan $0 $0 $299,337 $0 $6,399,352  

Total

  

 

$709,680

 

    

 

$       3,534

 

    

 

$(375,431

  

$

 

    

 

$16,110,430

 

 Deferred RSUs(1) $3,357,261 $0 $2,196,548 $0 $10,863,562  
 Total $3,657,254 $43,538 $2,869,489 $0 $21,753,757
Krishna Mikkilineni SS Plan $241,304 $33,646 $108,698 $0 $1,763,571
 DIC Plan $362,500 $0 $40,828 $0 $1,584,555
 Deferred RSUs(1) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
 Total $603,804 $33,646 $149,526 $0 $3,348,126
Rajeev Gautam SS Plan $218,902 $28,794 $112,369 $0 $1,777,745
 DIC Plan $0 $0 $14,953 $0 $563,421
 Deferred RSUs(1) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
 Total $218,902 $28,794 $127,322 $0 $2,341,166
David M. Cote SS Plan $34,892 $26,169 $1,227,480 $0 $7,313,167
 DIC Plan $0 $0 $2,310,435 $0 $24,561,901
 Deferred RSUs(1) $0 $0 $32,987,618 $0 $133,788,674
 Total $34,892 $26,169 $36,525,533 $0 $165,663,741

All deferred compensation amounts, regardless of the plan, are unfunded and unsecured obligations of the Company and are subject to the same risks as any of the Company’s general obligations.

 

(1)

For SS Plan deferrals contributed on or after April 6, 2018, the Company matching contributions are credited annually no later than the following January 31st if the Named Executive Officer was actively employed or on a disability leave of absence as of December 15th. The value of registrant contributions in the last fiscal year for the SS Plan includes annual matching contributions that will be credited to the Named Executive Officers other than Mr. Szlosek for the April 6, 2018 to December 31, 2018 period.

(2)

The value of executive contributions in the last fiscal year is calculated by multiplying the number of deferred RSUs that vested in 20172018 by the closing price of a share of Common Stock on the vesting date (or the next business day following the vesting date). The value of the aggregate balance at the last fiscal year is calculated by multiplying the total number of vested, deferred RSUs on December 31, 20172018 by the closing price of a share of Common Stock on December 31, 2017 ($153.36), and then adding2018 ($132.12). Unpaid deferred units were adjusted to take into account the cash value of deferred dividend equivalents and interest.two spins that occurred in 2018. This column reflects the following: 45,287 units for Mr. Szlosek, 70,83775,491.1661 units for Mr. Mahoney and 866,81347,491.1614 units and $854,232 in cash for Mr. Cote.Szlosek.

74

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019



07  |

EXECUTIVE

COMPENSATION TABLES

 

70       |        (3)Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners     |     2018

Executive Compensation> Nonqualified Deferred Compensation

(2)The following table details the extent to which amounts reported in the contributions and earnings columns are reported in the Summary Compensation Table and amounts reported in the aggregate balance column were reported in the Summary Compensation Table for previous years. In the table above, for the SS Plan, the “Aggregate earningsAggregate Earnings in last FY”Last FY column includes interest credits and changes in the value of the Company Common Stock fund. The value of the Company Common Stock fund increases or decreases in accordance with the Company’s stock price and the reinvestment of dividends. In the table above, for the deferred RSUs, the “Aggregate earningsAggregate Earnings in last FY”Last FY column includes dividend equivalent credits and any increase (or decrease) in the Company’s stock price.

 

 Executive Registrant  Portion of Aggregate
 Contributions Contributions Earnings Balance Included                   
Named Executive Officer in SCT in SCT in SCT in Prior SCTs  Executive
Contributions in SCT
   Registrant
Contributions in SCT
   Earnings in SCT   Portion of Aggregate
Balance Included in Prior SCTs
               
                   
Darius Adamczyk $95,169 $71,377 $0 $125,056  

 

$107,192

 

  

 

$92,067

 

  

 

$    1,341

 

  

 

$1,515,602

 

       
Thomas A. Szlosek $267,463 $38,402 $24,578 $1,632,743

Gregory P. Lewis

  

 

$  55,755

 

  

 

$21,699

 

  

 

$       984

 

  

 

$            —

 

       
Timothy O. Mahoney $299,993 $43,538 $74,880 $7,253,744  

 

$302,341

 

  

 

$51,284

 

  

 

$106,968

 

  

 

$8,122,155

 

       
Krishna Mikkilineni $241,304 $33.646 $0 $258,490  

 

$242,839

 

  

 

$40,021

 

  

 

$    8,374

 

  

 

$1,903,440

 

       
Rajeev Gautam $218,902 $28,794 $0 $0
David M. Cote $34,892 $26,169 $788,013 $41,168,026

Mark R. James

  

 

$  73,562

 

  

 

$37,927

 

  

 

$  28,104

 

  

 

$            —

 

       

Thomas A. Szlosek

  

 

$159,680

 

  

 

$  3,534

 

  

 

$  53,503

 

  

 

$2,513,186

 

       

 

(4)

The Growth Plan amounts represent 50% of the Growth Plan award included in the Summary Compensation Table for the calendar year ended December 31, 2017. This portion of the Growth Plan amount will be paid in cash no later than March 15, 2019. Generally, to receive a Growth Plan payment, the Named Executive Officer must be actively employed on the payment date. Mr. Szlosek will not receive this payment due to his retirement before the payment date.

Honeywell Excess Benefit Plan and Honeywell Supplemental Savings Plan

The Supplemental Savings Plan allows Honeywell executives, including the Named Executive Officers, to defer the portion of their annual base salary that cannot be contributed to the Company’s tax-qualified 401(k) plan due to the annual deferral and compensation limits imposed by the Internal Revenue Code and/or up to an additional 25% of base annual salary for the plan year.

After one year of service, and toTo the extent amounts have not already been matched on a similar basis under the Company’s 401(k) plan, Honeywell matched for deferrals posted to the SS Plan at the rate of 37.5%87.5% on the first 8% of eligible pay deferred for the first five years of match participation,on and 75.0%after April 6, 2018 (75% on the first 8% of eligible pay deferred thereafter.before April 6, 2018). Matching contributions are always vested.

vested and are credited on an annual basis for deferrals on and after April 6, 2018 if the participant was actively employed or on a disability leave of absence as of December 15, 2018 (on a periodic basis for deferrals before April 6, 2018).

Interest Rate.Participant deferrals for the 2005 plan year and later are credited with a rate of interest, compounded daily, based on the Company’s 15-year cost of borrowing. The rate is subject to change annually, and for 2017,2018, this rate was 2.69%3.38%. Participant deferrals for the 2004 plan year and earlier are credited with a rate of interest, compounded daily, that was set by the Management Development and Compensation Committee (MDCC) before the beginning of each plan year and is fixed until the deferral is distributed. Prior to the 2005 plan year, the CommitteeMDCC would set the rate at an above-market rate to retain executives. Above-market interest credited on SS Plan deferrals and reflected in the Summary Compensation Table onpage 6164 includes the difference between market interest rates determined by SEC rules and the interest credited under the SS Plan. Matching contributions are treated as invested in Common Stock. Dividends are treated as reinvested in additional shares of Common Stock.

Distribution.Amounts deferred for the 2005 plan year and later will be distributed in a lump sum in January of the year following the termination of the participant’s active employment. For the 2006 plan year and later, a participant can elect to receive up to ten installments in lieu of the lump sum payment, which election will take effect only if the participant terminates employment after reaching age 55 with ten years of service.

Except in hardship circumstances, amounts deferred for the 2004 plan year and earlier will be distributed either in January of any subsequent year or in January of the year following termination of employment, as elected by the participant. The participant can elect to receive distributions in a lump sum or up to 15 annual installments.

Participant deferrals to the SS Plan are distributed in cash only. Matching contributions are distributed in shares of Common Stock.

Amounts deferred for the 2005 plan year and later cannot be withdrawn before the distribution date for any reason. Amounts deferred for the 2004 plan year and earlier may be withdrawn before the distribution date if a hardship exists or the participant requests an immediate withdrawal subject to a penalty of 6%.

 

2018

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of ShareownersStatement  |  2019

       |       71

75



07  |

EXECUTIVE

COMPENSATION TABLES

Executive Compensation> Nonqualified Deferred Compensation

 

Honeywell Salary and Incentive Award Deferral Plan for Selected Employees

The Honeywell DIC Plan allows Honeywell executives, including the Named Executive Officers, to defer all or a portion of their annual cash incentive compensation.

Interest Rate.Beginning in 2005, deferrals are credited with a rate of interest, based on Honeywell’s 15-year borrowing rate which is set annually at the beginning of the year (2.69%(3.38% for 2017)2018). Amounts deferred for the 2004 plan year and earlier are credited with a rate of interest, compounded daily, that was set by the CommitteeMDCC before the beginning of each plan year and is fixed until the deferral is distributed. Prior to the 2005 plan year, the CommitteeMDCC would set the total rate at an above-market rate to retain executives. Above-market interest credited on DIC Plan deferrals and reflected in the Summary Compensation Table onpage 6164 includes the difference between market interest rates determined by SEC rules and the interest credited under the DIC Plan.

Distribution.Distribution. Amounts deferred for the 2006 plan year and later will be distributed in a lump sum in January of the year following the termination of the participant’s active employment. A participant can elect to receive up to ten installments in lieu of the lump sum payment, which election will take effect only if the participant terminates employment after reaching age 55 with ten years of service.

Except in hardship circumstances (if permitted), amounts deferred for the 2005 plan year and earlier will be distributed either in January of any year three years after the compensation was earned or in January of the year following termination of the participant’s employment, as elected by the participant. The participant could elect to receive non-hardship distributions in a lump sum or up to 15 annual installments.

Amounts deferred for the 2002 plan year and later cannot be withdrawn before the distribution date for any reason. Amounts deferred for the 2001 plan year and earlier may be withdrawn before the distribution date if a hardship exists or the participant requests an immediate withdrawal subject to a penalty that ranges from 0% to 6% and that is based on the ten-year Treasury bond rate at the beginning of the calendar quarter.

Deferral of RSUs

The Named Executive Officers may defer the receipt of up to 100% of their RSUs upon vesting based on an election made at the time of grant. The executive may defer payment to:

 

A specific year that is four or more years from the vesting year; or
To the year following the executive’s termination of active employment.

A specific year after the vesting year; or

 

The year following the executive’s termination of active employment.

The executive can also choose to receive payment in a lump sum or up to 15 annual installments and can also elect at the time of grant to accelerate the form and timing of payment following a change in control to a lump sum paid no later than 90 days following the change in control. For grants made before July 2004, an executive could also deferCash dividend equivalents in cashon deferred RSUs (determined at the same rate as a regular share of Common Stock) are converted to additional deferred RSUs as of the dividend payment date and such amounts are credited with interest at a 10% rate, compounded daily, until payment. The practice of deferring dividend equivalents in cash ended in July 2004. Above-market interest relatedsubject to the same payment schedule and restrictions as the underlying deferred dividend equivalents reflected in the Summary Compensation Table onpage 61 includes the difference between market interest rates determined by SEC rules and the 10% interest credited by the Company on the pre-July 2004 grants, the terms of which cannot be amended.

RSUs.

Unvested Dividend Equivalents

Cash dividend equivalents on unvested RSUs (determined at the same rate as a regular share of Common Stock) are converted to additional unvested RSUs as of the dividend payment date and are subject to the same vesting schedule and restrictions as the underlying RSUs.

The terms of the SERP Plan, the SS Plan, the DIC Plan, the deferred RSUs and the unvested dividend equivalents are subject to the requirements of, and regulations and guidance published by, Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code.

 

76

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019



7207  |       |        Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners     |     2018

EXECUTIVE

COMPENSATION TABLES

Executive Compensation> Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control

 

IPOTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON TERMINATION OR CHANGE IN CONTROL

Overview

This section describes the benefits payable to our Named Executive Officers in two circumstances:

 

Termination of Employment
Change in Control

Termination of Employment

 

Change in Control

Senior Severance Plan

These benefits are determined primarily under a plan that we refer to as our “SeniorSenior Severance Plan. In addition to the Senior Severance Plan, other of our benefits plans, such as our annual incentive compensation plan, also have provisions that impact these benefits.

These benefits ensure that our executives are motivated primarily by the needs of the businesses for which they are responsible, rather than circumstances that are outside the ordinary course of business, i.e., circumstances that might lead to the termination of an executive’s employment or that might lead to a Change in Control of the Company. Generally, this is achieved by assuring our Named Executive Officers that they will receive a level of continued compensation if their employment is adversely affected in these circumstances, subject to certain conditions. We believe that these benefits help ensure that affected executives act in the best interests of our shareowners, even if such actions are otherwise contrary to their personal interests. This is critical because these are circumstances in which the actions of our Named Executive Officers may have a material impact upon our shareowners. Accordingly, we set the level and terms of these benefits in a way that we believe is necessary to obtain the desired results. The level of benefit and the rights to benefits are determined by the type of termination event, as described below. We believe that these benefits are generally in line with current market practices and are particularly important as we do not maintain employment agreements with our Named Executive Officers.

Benefits provided under the Senior Severance Plan are conditioned on the executive executing a full release of claims and certain non-competition and non-solicitation covenants in favor of the Company. The right to continued severance benefits under the plan ceases in the event of a violation of such covenants. In addition, we would seek to recover severance benefits already paid to any executive who violates such restrictive covenants.

In the case of a Change in Control, severance benefits are payable only in the event thatif both parts of the “double trigger” are satisfied. That is, (i) there must be a Change in Control of our Company, and (ii)(A) the Named Executive Officer must be involuntarily terminated other than for cause, or (ii)(B) the Named Executive Officer must initiate the termination of his own employment for good reason. Similarly, in response to shareowner feedback, the Company also amended its stock incentive plan in 2014 to eliminate automatic single-trigger vesting of equity, and Growth Plan, and Performance Plan Unit awards that are rolled-over upon a Change in Control.

 

2018

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of ShareownersStatement  |  2019

       |       73

77



07  |

EXECUTIVE

COMPENSATION TABLES

Executive Compensation> Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control

 

Summary of Benefits—Termination Events

The following table summarizes the termination of employment and Change in Control benefits payable to our Named Executive Officers. None of these termination benefits are payable to Named Executive Officers who voluntarily quit (other than voluntary resignations for good reason)reason after a Change in Control) or whose employment is terminated by us for cause. The information in the table below is based on the assumption, in each case, that termination of employment occurred on December 31, 2017.2018. Pension and non-qualifiednonqualified deferred compensation benefits, which are described elsewhere in this proxy statement,Proxy Statement, are not included in the table below in accordance with the applicable proxy statementProxy Statement disclosure requirements, even though they may become payable at the times specified in the table. The effect of a termination of employment or Change in Control on outstanding stock options and RSUs is described in the section below entitled “Impact on Equity-Based Awards.”

 

            Change in
            Control—
            Termination of
            Employment
            by Company
    Termination       Without Cause,
    by the     Change in By NEO for
    Company     Control—No Good Reason
Payments and Named Executive Without     Termination of or Due to
Benefits Officer Cause Death Disability Employment Disability
Cash Severance Darius Adamczyk $12,375,000    $12,375,500
(Base Salary + Bonus) Thomas A. Szlosek $2,625,000    $3,500,000
  Timothy O. Mahoney $3,144,375    $4,192,500
  Krishna Mikkilineni $4,800,000    $4,800,000
  Rajeev Gautam $2,175,000    $2,900,000
  David M. Cote     
ICP Darius Adamczyk    $3,275,000 $3,275,000
(Year of Termination) Thomas A. Szlosek    $1,100,000 $1,100,000
  Timothy O. Mahoney    $1,540,000 $1,540,000
  Krishna Mikkilineni    $915,000 $915,000
  Rajeev Gautam    $1,040,000 $1,040,000
  David M. Cote $2,850,000 $2,850,000 $2,850,000 $3,420,000 $3,420,000
Growth Plan Awards and Darius Adamczyk  $4,492,800 $4,492,800  $4,492,800
Performance Unit Awards Thomas A. Szlosek  $2,192,920 $2,192,920  $2,192,920
  Timothy O. Mahoney  $1,769,040 $1,769,040  $1,769,040
  Krishna Mikkilineni  $1,866,800 $1,866,800  $1,866,800
  Rajeev Gautam  $2,158,440 $2,158,440  $2,158,440
  David M. Cote  $5,225,000 $5,225,000  $5,225,000
Benefits and Perquisites Darius Adamczyk $23,985    $23,985
  Thomas A. Szlosek $11,274    $15,031
  Timothy O. Mahoney $14,373    $19,164
  Krishna Mikkilineni $26,156    $26,156
  Rajeev Gautam $14,534    $19,379
  David M. Cote     
All Other- Darius Adamczyk $252,272    $618,066
Payments/Benefits Thomas A. Szlosek $32,827    $199,666
  Timothy O. Mahoney     $752,464
  Krishna Mikkilineni $3,072,637    $4,138,824
  Rajeev Gautam     
  David M. Cote     
Total Darius Adamczyk $12,651,257 $4,492,800 $4,492,800 $3,275,000 $20,784,851
  Thomas A. Szlosek $2,669,101 $2,192,920 $2,192,920 $1,100,000 $7,007,617
  Timothy O. Mahoney $3,158,748 $1,769,040 $1,769,040 $1,540,000 $8,273,168
  Krishna Mikkilineni $7,898,793 $1,866,800 $1,866,800 $915,000 $11,746,780
  Rajeev Gautam $2,189,534 $2,158,440 $2,158,440 $1,040,000 $6,117,819
  David M. Cote $2,850,000 $8,075,000 $8,075,000 $3,420,000 $8,645,000
                            

Payments and Benefits

 Named Executive Officer  Termination
by the Company
Without Cause
   Death   Disability   Change in Control—
No Termination of
Employment
   Change in Control—
Termination of
Employment by
Company Without
Cause, By NEO for
Good Reason or Due
to Disability
 
                            

Cash Severance

(Base Salary + Bonus)

 

Darius Adamczyk

  

 

$13,200,000

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

$13,200,000

 

 

Gregory P. Lewis

  

 

$  2,100,000

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

$  2,800,000

 

 

Timothy O. Mahoney

  

 

$  3,225,000

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

$  4,300,000

 

 

Krishna Mikkilineni

  

 

$  4,890,000

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

$  4,890,000

 

  

Mark R. James

  

 

$  4,680,000

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

$  4,680,000

 

ICP

(Year of Termination)

 

Darius Adamczyk

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

$4,100,000

 

  

 

$  4,100,000

 

 

Gregory P. Lewis

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

$   730,000

 

  

 

$     730,000

 

 

Timothy O. Mahoney

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

$1,840,000

 

  

 

$  1,840,000

 

 

Krishna Mikkilineni

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

$   930,000

 

  

 

$     930,000

 

  

Mark R. James

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

$1,080,000

 

  

 

$  1,080,000

 

Growth Plan Awards and

Performance Unit Awards

 

Darius Adamczyk

  

 

 

  

 

$6,464,760

 

  

 

$6,464,760

 

  

 

 

  

 

$  6,464,760

 

 

Gregory P. Lewis

  

 

 

  

 

$   630,950

 

  

 

$   630,950

 

  

 

 

  

 

$     630,950

 

 

Timothy O. Mahoney

  

 

 

  

 

$2,770,908

 

  

 

$2,770,908

 

  

 

 

  

 

$  2,770,908

 

 

Krishna Mikkilineni

  

 

 

  

 

$2,580,244

 

  

 

$2,580,244

 

  

 

 

  

 

$  2,580,244

 

  

Mark R. James

  

 

 

  

 

$2,329,216

 

  

 

$2,329,216

 

  

 

 

  

 

$  2,329,216

 

Benefits and Perquisites

 

Darius Adamczyk

  

 

$       29,729

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

$       29,729

 

 

Gregory P. Lewis

  

 

$         9,506

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

$       12,675

 

 

Timothy O. Mahoney

  

 

$       14,750

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

$       19,667

 

 

Krishna Mikkilineni

  

 

$       13,712

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

$       13,712

 

  

Mark R. James

  

 

$       26,465

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

$       26,465

 

All Other- Payments/Benefits

 

Darius Adamczyk

  

 

$     266,928

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

$     759,611

 

 

Gregory P. Lewis

  

 

$       30,426

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

$     115,060

 

 

Timothy O. Mahoney

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

$     583,992

 

 

Krishna Mikkilineni

  

 

$  2,852,633

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

$  3,914,552

 

  

Mark R. James

  

 

$     210,505

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

$  1,305,078

 

Total

 

Darius Adamczyk

  

 

$13,496,657

 

  

 

$6,464,760

 

  

 

$6,464,760

 

  

 

$4,100,000

 

  

 

$24,554,100

 

 

Gregory P. Lewis

  

 

$  2,139,932

 

  

 

$   630,950

 

  

 

$   630,950

 

  

 

$   730,000

 

  

 

$  4,288,685

 

 

Timothy O. Mahoney

  

 

$  3,239,750

 

  

 

$2,770,908

 

  

 

$2,770,908

 

  

 

$1,840,000

 

  

 

$  9,514,567

 

 

Krishna Mikkilineni

  

 

$  7,756,345

 

  

 

$2,580,244

 

  

 

$2,580,244

 

  

 

$   930,000

 

  

 

$12,328,508

 

  

Mark R. James

  

 

$  4,916,970

 

  

 

$2,329,216

 

  

 

$2,329,216

 

  

 

$1,080,000

 

  

 

$  9,420,759

 

 

74       |        

78

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners     Statement  |2018  2019



07  |

EXECUTIVE

COMPENSATION TABLES

Executive Compensation> Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control

 

Explanation of Benefits—Termination Events

The following describes the benefits that are quantified in the table above assuming the event occurred on December 31, 2017.2018. In regard to each portion of the benefit, the benefits that are paid in the context of a Change in Control are, except as noted, the same as the benefits paid other than as a result of a Change in Control.

 

Benefit/Event
  

Benefit/Event

Amount and termsTerms of payments
Payments

(other than upon a Change in Control)

  Change Inin Control provisionsProvisions

Severance Benefits-Cash PaymentInvoluntary termination without cause; Change in Control termination without cause or by a Named Executive officerOfficer for good reason.

  

Three years of base salary and bonus for Mr. Adamczyk, Mr. Mikkilineni and Mr. Mikkilineni,James, and 18 months of base salary and bonus for Messrs. Szlosek, GautamLewis and Mahoney.

Paid in cash.

Bonus is equal to target percentage of base salary.

Payment conditioned upon a general release in favor of the Company, non-compete, non-disclosure (indefinite duration), and non-solicitation covenants (two years for customers and two years for employees) and refraining from certain other misconduct.

  

For Messrs. Szlosek, GautamLewis and Mahoney, severance period is increased from 18 months to two years.

Amounts are paid in a lump sum within 60 days following the later of the date of termination or the Change in Control date.

Annual Bonus for the Year of Termination-Cash Payment

Annual ICP Plan bonus is payable to NEOs for the year in which a Change in Control occurs. Additionally, pursuant to his Business Continuity Agreement, an annual bonus is payable to Mr. Cote for 2017 because he remained employed as the Company’s CEO through March 31, 2017.  

•    Paid in cash to Mr. Cote at the time bonuses are typically paid to executives for the year of termination.                

  

 N/A

Based on achievement of pre-established ICP goals and the Committee’sMDCC’s assessment of other relevant criteria, for the stub period ending on the Change in Control (as defined in the ICP Plan) date, prorated through the Change in Control date.

Paid in cash at the time ICP awards are typically paid to Honeywell executives for the year in which a Change in Control occurs, but only if the employee is actively employed on the payment date, has been involuntarily terminated other than for cause or has terminated employment for good reason.

Growth Plan Awards-Cash Payment

Growth Plan awards are paid out in the event of death, disability, and Change in Control.
Note:As a result of a stock plan amendment made in 2014, future Growth Plan awards will no longer automatically vest upon a Change in Control if assumed by the successor, but will remain outstanding subject to equitably adjusted performance conditions and the original vesting and payment schedules.

  

The awardremaining payment due for the 2016-20172016- 2017 Growth Plan performance cycle would be paid out, in full, after death or disability.

The amounts in the “Death” and “Disability” columns in the Potential Payments upon Termination or Change in Control Table above reflectinclude the remaining amounts payable under the 2016-2017 Growth Plan payment amounts.(50% of the earned awards).

  

The 2016-2017 Growth Plan award will become payable to an employee who experiences a qualifying ‘double trigger’ termination within two-years of a Change in Control. To the extent these awards are not assumed by the successor, outstanding Growth Plan awards will become vested. The “Change in Control-Termination of Employment” column includes the remaining payment due under the 2016-2017 Growth Plan payment amounts.Plan.

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019

79



07  |

EXECUTIVE

COMPENSATION TABLES

Benefit/Event

Amount and terms of payments

(other than upon a Change in Control)

Change in Control Provisions

Performance Unit Awards

Performance Unit awards are paid out in the event of death, disability and Change in Control.

  

The outstanding 2017-2019 Performance Unit award would be paid out on a prorated basis, based on actual performance determined at the end of the performance cycle upon death or disability. The amounts in the “Death” and “Disability” columns in the Potential Payments upon Termination or Change in Control Table above includes one-thirdtwo-thirds of the 2017-2019 award at target (target shares multiplied by closing price of a share of Common Stock on December 31, 20172018 ($153.36)132.12)).

 The outstanding 2018-2020 Performance Unit award would be paid out on a prorated basis, based on actual performance determined at the end of the performance cycle upon death or disability. The amounts in the “Death” and “Disability” columns in the Potential Payments upon Termination or Change in Control Table above includes one-third of the 2018-2020 award at target (target shares multiplied by closing price of a share of Common Stock on December 31, 2018 ($132.12)).

  

The 2017-2019 Performance Unit award will become payable to an employee who experiences a qualifying ‘double trigger’ termination within two-years of a Change in Control. To the extent these awards are not assumed by the successor, outstanding Performance Unit awards will become vested on a pro rata basis, based on an assessment of actual performance, for the portion of the performance cycle elapsed to the closing date of the Change in Control event. The “Change in Control-Termination of Employment” column includes two-thirds of the 2017-2019 award at target (target shares multiplied by closing price of a share of Common Stock on December 31, 2018 ($132.12)).

 The 2018-2020 Performance Unit award will become payable to an employee who experiences a qualifying ‘double trigger’ termination within two-years of a Change in Control. To the extent these awards are not assumed by the successor, outstanding Performance Unit awards will become vested on a pro rata basis, based on an assessment of actual performance, for the portion of the performance cycle elapsed to the closing date of the Change in Control event. The “Change in Control-Termination of Employment” column includes one-third of the 2017-20192018-2020 award at target (target shares multiplied by closing price of a share of Common Stock on December 31, 20172018 ($153.36)132.12)).

Certain Benefits and Perquisites

Termination of employment without cause.cause; Change in Control, voluntary termination of employment by a Named Executive Officer for good reason.

  

Life insurance coverage is continued at Honeywell’s cost for the severance period.

Medical and dental benefits are continued during the severance period at active employee contribution rates.

  

Funds sufficient to pay all projected annual reimbursements needed to satisfy Life insurance coverage is continued at Honeywell’s cost for the life insurance reimbursement agreement for Mr. Coteseverance period.

 Medical and dental benefits are set aside in a trust for Mr. Cote’s benefit.continued during the severance period at active employee contribution rates.

Other Benefits

  

Service credit for pension purposes during the first 12 months of the severance period; however,period.

 Service credit for Mr. Cote there is no incremental value attributable to this credit because his benefit formula does not include service as a component thereof.pension purposes during the first 12 months of the severance period.

2018     |     Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners       |       75
 

Executive Compensation> Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control

Excise Tax Reimbursement

U.S. tax laws may impose an excise tax on employees who receive benefits in connection with a Change in Control in certain circumstances and subject to certain conditions. In 2009, the Company amended the Senior Severance Plan to eliminate excise tax gross-ups for officers not already eligible for such treatment prior to January 1, 2010. As of December 31, 2017,2018, Messrs. CoteMahoney and MahoneyJames were the only NEOs grandfathered under this provision. Based on the Company’s expectation about how the excise tax would be calculated in the event of an actual Change in Control transaction, no NEO would have been subject to excise tax if a Change in Control had occurred on December 31, 2017.2018.

Impact onOn Equity-Based Awards

This section describes the impact of a termination of employment or a Change in Control on outstanding stock options and RSUs held by our Named Executive Officers. Additional information about these awards is included in the Outstanding Equity Awards Table onpage 6468 of this proxy statement.Proxy Statement.

80

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019



07  |

EXECUTIVE

COMPENSATION TABLES

 

The table below shows the in-the-money value of outstanding unvested stock options as well as RSUs and PSUs (“Full(Full Value Equity Awards”)Awards) held by our Named Executive Officers as of December 31, 2017,2018, based on the closing price of a share of Common Stock as reported on the New York Stock Exchange on December 31, 20172018 ($153.36)132.12).

These awards are scheduled to vest and to expire on various dates in the future. As described below, the vesting of these awards will be accelerated in certain termination of employment circumstances and upon a Change in Control (other than the equity awards granted after April 28, 2014, which will remain outstanding to the extent assumed by the successor upon a Change in Control). In addition, stock options will remain outstanding for different periods depending on the circumstances. The value to a Named Executive Officer of these provisions depends on the vesting period and remaining terms of the awards. For example, the value to a Named Executive Officer of accelerating the vesting of an option by one month is very different from the value of accelerating the vesting of an option by three years. The table below does not distinguish between acceleration of vesting in these two different circumstances, or assign a value to the other provisions. Rather, it only indicates the aggregate amount of the awards to which these provisions would apply at December 31, 2017.2018.

 

  In-the-Money    
  Value of  Unvested 
  Unvested Stock  Full Value 
Named Executive Officer Options  Equity Awards 
Mr. Adamczyk $20,808,503  $19,621,262 
Mr. Szlosek $13,406,583  $8,449,340 
Mr. Mahoney $17,197,140  $13,400,041 
Mr. Mikkilineni $12,649,719  $9,527,900 
Mr. Gautam $5,075,700  $5,201,816 
Mr. Cote $63,922,454  $ 
             

Named Executive Officer

  In-the-Money
Value of Unvested
Stock Options
     

Unvested Full Value

Equity Awards

 
             

Darius Adamczyk

  

 

$7,340,636

 

    

 

$25,795,373

 

Gregory P. Lewis

  

 

$   856,448

 

    

 

$  3,353,998

 

Timothy O. Mahoney

  

 

$5,804,275

 

    

 

$16,296,077

 

Krishna Mikkilineni

  

 

$4,467,710

 

    

 

$12,180,143

 

Mark R. James

  

 

$3,064,988

 

    

 

$11,630,788

 

Mr. Szlosek retired on October 5, 2018. He has retained the right to continued vesting in restricted stock units originally granted to him on July 25, 2014, July 29, 2016 and February 27, 2018, subject to any applicable Company performance conditions, with no change to the vesting dates set forth in the original grant agreements. The total value of his retained awards at 12/31/2018 was $6,676,420. All unvested stock options, Growth Plan units and Performance Plan PSUs were forfeited upon his retirement.

76       |        Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners     |     2018

Executive Compensation> Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control

Termination or Change in Control Impact onOn Outstanding Awards

The treatment of outstanding stock options and RSUsplan awards following termination of employment depends on the plan under which the awards were granted, as follows:

 

Plan

Treatment of Stock Options and RSUs

2006 Stock Incentive Plan of Honeywell International Inc. and its Affiliates.For awards granted after 2006, RSUs and unvested stock options become vested in full upon death, disability, or a Change in Control, and RSUs also vest following full retirement on a pro-rata basis based on the number of complete years of service between the grant date and the retirement date. In other circumstances, unvested options and RSUs are immediately forfeited.Affiliates

  
Performance awards vest at target upon a Change in Control unless the award agreement provides otherwise. RSUs and performance awards that vest upon a Change in Control shall be paid within 90 days (subject to any deferral election).

Following termination of employment, participants (or their beneficiaries) have until the earlier of the original expiration date or the following period in which to exercise vested options:

Three (3) years in the event of death, disability or a voluntary or involuntary termination (other than for cause) after qualifying for “early retirement” (age 55 and ten years of service) or “full retirement” (age 60 and ten years of service);

— One (1) year in the case of any other involuntary termination without cause; and

— Thirty (30) days in the case of a voluntary termination.

   
 

2011 Stock Incentive Plan of Honeywell International Inc. and its Affiliates.Affiliates

For awards granted before July 2012, the vesting rules are the same as underfollowing: (1) RSUs and unvested stock options become vested in full upon death, disability, or a Change in Control, (2) RSUs also vest following full retirement on a pro-rata basis based on the 2006 Stock Incentive Plan.number of complete years of service between the grant date and the retirement date, and (3) in other circumstances, unvested options and RSUs are immediately forfeited. Performance awards vest at target upon a Change in Control unless the award agreement provides otherwise. RSUs and performance awards that vest upon a Change in Control shall be paid within 90 days (subject to any deferral election).

 RSUs granted after June 2012 do not vest at all following full retirement. For awards granted after April 2014, unvested stock options and RSUs shall not automatically vest upon a Change in Control if rolled over or continued by the successor. In such case, vesting shall only occur if a participant’s employment is terminated, either by the successor without cause or by the participant for good reason (that is, “double trigger” vesting), within two years following a Change in Control.

Double trigger vesting applies to other awards granted after this date also. Performance awards shall vest at target, unpaid growth plan awards where the performance cycle has ended shall be paid within 90 days, and growth plan awards where the performance cycle has not ended shall be paid within 90 days on a pro-rata basis through the termination date based on target performance through the termination date.
target.

The rules for post-termination exercise periods for vested stock options under this plan are the same as the 2006 Stock Incentive Plan.

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019

81



07  |

EXECUTIVE

COMPENSATION TABLES

  

Plan

Treatment of Stock Options and RSUs

   

2016 Stock Incentive Plan of Honeywell International Inc. and its Affiliates.Affiliates

RSUs do not vest at all following retirement (regardless of retirement age). Unvested stock options and RSUs shall not automatically vest upon a Change in Control if rolled over or continued by the successor. In such case, vesting shall only occur if a participant’s employment is terminated, either by the successor without cause or by the participant for good reason (that is, “double trigger” vesting), within two years following a Change in Control. Double trigger vesting applies to other awards granted also.

Performance awards shall vest at target, and unpaid growth plan awards where the performance cycle has ended shall be paid within 90 days, and growth plan awards where the performance cycle has not ended shall be paid within 90 days on a pro-rata basis through the termination date based on target performance through the termination date.days. The rules for post-termination exercise periods for vested stock options under this plan are the same as the 2006 Stock Incentive Plan.

For Mr. Cote,stock options and RSUs continue to remain outstanding and vest as scheduled, if his employment is terminated by the Company other than for cause or by him for good reason. Mr. Cote’s unvested options and RSUs vest immediately if he dies or becomes disabled. In addition, under the terms and conditions of an agreement entered into with Mr. Cote on July 29, 2011 for retention and succession planning purposes (the “2011 Cote Agreement”), stock options (other than stock options subject to performance conditions) granted prior to April 1, 2015, and more than six months prior to Mr. Cote’s retirement date, will become fully vested on his retirement date, and he will have the full remaining term to exercise any such vested stock options. The same terms and conditions apply to stock options subject to performance conditions; however, vesting will not occur until the end of the applicable performance cycle and then, only to the extent the applicable performance metrics have been satisfied. Finally, under the terms and conditions of another agreement entered into with Mr. Cote on June 28, 2016 for retention and succession planning purposes (the “2016 Cote Agreement”), stock options that do not automatically vest pursuant to the 2011 Cote Agreement will remain outstanding and continue to vest as scheduled after his retirement date, and he will have the full remaining term to exercise any such vested stock options. In addition, if Mr. Cote retires after March 31, 2017, he shall receive a Growth Plan payout for the 2016-17 Growth Plan cycle. Such payout shall be made in shares of Honeywell stock and shall be subject to a one-year holding requirement. The benefits described in the 2016 Cote Agreement only apply to the extent that Mr. Cote adheres to certain non-competition and non-solicitation covenants.

2018     |     Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners       |       77

Executive Compensation> CEO Pay Ratio

 

Defined Terms Used in This Section

As used in our plans, the following terms are assigned the meanings summarized below.

 

Term
  Summary of Definition
Change in Control

Term

  

Summary of Definition

Change in Control

the   The acquisition of 30% or more of the Common Stock;

the   The purchase of all or part of the Common Stock pursuant to a tender offer or exchange offer;

a   A merger where Honeywell does not survive as an independent, publicly-owned corporation;

a   A sale of substantially all of Honeywell’s assets; or

a   A substantial change in Honeywell’s Board over a two-year period;period.

additionally,   Additionally, under the Senior Severance Plan, any event that the Committee,MDCC, in its discretion, determines to be a Change in Control for purposes of that plan; provided that under the 2006, 2011 or 2016 Stock Incentive Plan, each of the events described above would only be a Change in Control if it constitutes a “change in control event” within the meaning of United States Department of Treasury Regulation §1.409A-3(i)(5)(i).

Termination for causeCause (for otherOther Named Executive Officers)

  

clear   Clear and convincing evidence of a significant violation of the Company’s Code of Business Conduct;

the   The misappropriation, embezzlement, or willful destruction of Company property of significant value;

the   The willful failure to perform, gross negligence or intentional misconduct of significant duties that results in material harm to the business of the Company;

the   The conviction (treating a nolo contendere plea as a conviction) of a felony (whether or not any right to appeal has been or may be exercised);

   The failure to cooperate fully in a Company investigation or to be fully truthful when providing evidence or testimony in such investigation; or

clear   Clear and convincing evidence of the willful falsification of any financial records of the Company that are used in compiling the Company’s financial statements or related disclosures, with the intent of violating Generally Accepted Accounting Principles or, if applicable, International Financial Reporting Standards.

Termination for good reasonGood Reason (for otherOther Named Executive Officers)

  

a   A material diminution in the Named Executive Officer’s authority, duties, or responsibilities;

a   A material decrease in base compensation;

a material decrease in base compensation; a   A material reduction in the aggregate benefits available to the Named Executive Officer where such reduction does not apply to all similarly-situated employees;

any   Any geographic relocation of the Named Executive Officer’s position to a location that is more than 50 miles from his or her previous work location;

any   Any action that constitutes a constructive discharge; or

the   The failure of a successor to assume these obligations under the Senior Severance Plan.

82

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019



07  |

EXECUTIVE

COMPENSATION TABLES

 

CEO PAY RATIO

As required by Section 953(b) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, and Item 402(u) of Regulation S-K, we are providing the following information about the relationship of the annual total compensation of the individual identified as our employeesmedian paid employee and the annual total compensation of Mr. Darius Adamczyk, Presidentour Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (the “CEO”)CEO):

For 2017,2018, our last completed fiscal year:

 

the annual total compensation of the employee identified at median of our company (other than our CEO), was $50,296; and
the annual total compensation of the CEO for purposes of determining the CEO Pay Ratio was $16,753,438.

the annual total compensation of the employee identified at median of our company (other than our CEO) was $66,749; and

 

the annual total compensation of the CEO for purposes of determining the CEO Pay Ratio was $19,246,604.

Based on this information, for 2017,2018, the ratio of the annual total compensation of Mr. Adamczyk, our Chief Executive Officer,CEO, to the median of the annual total compensation of all employees was estimated to be 333288 to 1.

78       |        Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners     |     2018

Executive Compensation> CEO Pay Ratio

This pay ratio is a reasonable estimate calculated in a manner consistent with SEC rules based on our payroll and employment records and the methodology described below. The SEC rules for identifying the median compensated employee and calculating the pay ratio based on that employee’s annual total compensation allow companies to adopt a variety of methodologies, to apply certain exclusions, and to make reasonable estimates and assumptions that reflect their compensation practices. As such, the pay ratio reported by other companies may not be comparable to the pay ratio reported above, as other companies may have different employment and compensation practices and may utilize different methodologies, exclusions, estimates and assumptions in calculating their own pay ratios.

As a result of a material decline in the number of Company employees in 2018 due to the Garrett. and Resideo spins (approximately 20,000), the Company chose to re-identify its median employee for 2018 after the spin populations were excluded.

To identify the median of the annual total compensation of all our employees, as well as to determine the annual total compensation of the “median employee,” the methodology and the material assumptions, adjustments, and estimates that we used were as follows:

We determined that,To identify our median employee for 2018, we considered our global population as of OctoberNovember 1, 2017, our employee population consisted of approximately 143,119 individuals globally. We selected October 1, 2017,2018, which iswas (i) after the spins were concluded, and (ii) within the last three months of 2017, as the date upon which we would identify the “median employee” to allow sufficient time to identify the median employee given the global scope of our operations.

2018.

Our total employee population, after takingbefore applying the 5% “De Minimis Exemption” adjustment as permitted under SEC rules (described below), consisted of approximately 136,079123,408 individuals.

 

De Minimis Exemption:

Total U.S. Employees

  

53,815

Total U.S. Employees57,027

Total non-U.S. Employees

86,092

  (no

69,593

(no exemptions)

Total Global Workforce

143,119
Total Exemptions:

  
Algeria

58

123,408

  
Angola7
Argentina275
Azerbaijan4
Belarus1
Brazil1,008
Bulgaria216
Colombia112
Ecuador1
Egypt26
Hungary492
Indonesia664
Israel27
Jordan15
Kazakhstan78
Morocco135
Myanmar4
Philippines80
Republic of Serbia5
Russian Federation872
Slovakia1,701
South Africa480
Thailand577
Tunisia123
Ukraine41
Uzbekistan4
Venezuela34
Total Exclusions7,040
Total U.S. Employees57,027
Total non-U.S. Employees79,052 (excluding 7,040 employees)
Total Workforce for Median Calculation136,079

InWe applied the De Minimis Exemption adjustment to exclude a total weof 6,098 employees located in jurisdictions outside the U.S. The countries and approximate number of Honeywell employees excluded less(less than 5% of our Total Global Workforce) were: Algeria (54), Angola (6), Argentina (267), Azerbaijan (3), Belarus (1), Brazil (768), Bulgaria (229), Colombia (124), Croatia (8), Ecuador (1), Egypt (31), Greece (4), Hungary (214), Indonesia (524), Iraq (10), Israel (30), Jordan (17), Kazakhstan (72), Kenya (13), Kuwait (188), Morocco (131), Pakistan (7), Peru (39), Philippines (135), Portugal (45), Russian Federation (866), Slovakia (1,310), Thailand (561), Tunisia (136), Turkey (242), Ukraine (34), Uzbekistan (4), Venezuela (20), and Vietnam (4).

Total Workforce (approximately 7,040 individuals) from the identificationfor Determination of the “median employee,” as permitted by SEC rules.Median Employee:

 

Total U.S. Employees

53,815

Adjusted Total non-U.S. Employees

63,495

(excluding 6,098 employees)

Total Global Workforce

117,310

To identify the “median employee” from ourthis employee population, we collected actual base salary, bonusincentive awards paid, and any overtime paid during the 12-month period ending OctoberNovember 1, 2017.

In making this determination,2018. As permitted under SEC rules, we annualized the compensation of all newly hired permanent employees during this period.

Once identified, we determined the median employee’s total compensation by applying the same rules used to report NEO compensation on the Summary Compensation Table.

 

2018

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of ShareownersStatement  |  2019

83



08  |79

PROPOSAL NO. 3:

APPROVAL OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

Executive CompensationPROPOSAL 3: APPROVAL OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS> CEO Pay Ratio

The Audit Committee, which consists entirely of independent directors, is directly responsible for the appointment, compensation, retention, and oversight of the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm. The Audit Committee is recommending approval of its appointment of Deloitte & Touche LLP (Deloitte) as independent accountants for Honeywell to audit its consolidated financial statements for 2019 and to perform audit-related services. These services include reviewing our quarterly interim financial information and periodic reports and registration statements filed with the SEC and consultation in connection with various accounting and financial reporting matters. If shareowners do not approve, the Audit Committee will reconsider the appointment.

The Audit Committee and Honeywell’s Board of Directors believe that the continued retention of Deloitte as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm is in the best interests of the Company and its shareowners. Honeywell has been advised by Deloitte that it will have a representative present at the Annual Meeting who will be available to respond to appropriate questions. The representative will also have the opportunity to make a statement if he or she desires to do so and be available to respond to appropriate questions.

INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTING FIRM FEES

Deloitte provided the following audit and other services during 2018 and 2017:

                    

(in millions of $)

    2018     2017      
                    

 

Audit Fees

    

 

$

 

20.40

 

 

    

 

$

 

20.19

 

 

    

 

 Annual integrated audit of the Company’s consolidated financial statements, and internal control over financial reporting, statutory audits of foreign subsidiaries, attest services, consents, issuance of comfort letters and review of documents filed with the SEC.

 

Audit-Related Fees

    

 

$

 

10.27

 

 

    

 

$

 

0.67

 

 

    

 

 Audit-related services in 2018 are primarily associated with the carve-out audits of Garrett Motion Inc. and Resideo Technologies, Inc. and agreed upon procedures. Audit-related services in 2017 are primarily associated with agreed upon procedures.

 

Tax Fees

    

 

$

 

0.02

 

 

    

 

$

 

0.03

 

 

    

 

 Tax compliance services in each of 2018 and 2017 related primarily to global employment tax services.

All Other Fees

    

$

0.00

 

    

$

0.00

 

     

Total Fees

    

$

30.69

 

    

$

20.89

 

     

NON-AUDIT SERVICES

The Audit Committee reviews non-audit services proposed to be provided by Deloitte to determine whether they would be compatible with maintaining Deloitte’s independence. The Audit Committee has established policies and procedures for the engagement of Deloitte to provide non-audit services. Specifically:

 

Honeywell had two individuals

The Audit Committee reviews and pre-approves an annual budget for specific categories of non-audit services (that are detailed as to the particular services) which Deloitte is to be permitted to provide (those categories do not include any of the prohibited services in the roleauditor independence provisions of CEO during 2017. We electedthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002). This review includes an evaluation of the possible impact of the provision of such services by Deloitte on the firm’s independence in performing its audit and audit-related services.

The Audit Committee reviews the non-audit services performed by, and amount of fees paid to, useDeloitte, by category in comparison to the compensationpre-approved budget.

The engagement of Mr. Adamczyk,Deloitte to provide non-audit services that do not fall within a specific category of pre-approved services, or that would result in the active CEO astotal fees payable to Deloitte in any category to exceed the pre-approved amount, requires the prior approval of December 31, 2017,the Audit Committee. Between regularly scheduled meetings of the Audit Committee, the Chair of the Audit Committee may represent the entire committee for purposes of determiningreview and approval of any such engagement, and the CEO pay ratio. Mr. Adamczyk became CEO in April 2017. In determining Mr. Adamczyk’s compensation, we adjusted the compensation reportedChair is required to report on the SCT to reflect his compensation as if he were CEO for the full calendar year, by increasing his base salary and ICP award amount as if he were CEO effective January 1, 2017. The base salary used was annualizedall such interim reviews at the full year CEO rate of $1,500,000. The ICP award amount used was adjusted based on that annualized base salary resulting in ICP award of $3,442,900. For purposes of calculating the CEO Pay Ratio, this resulted in total annual compensation of $16,753,438 for the CEO as opposed to the amount shown on Summary Compensation Table of $16,500,153.committee’s next regularly scheduled meeting.

 

80       |        

84

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners     Statement  |2018  2019



08  |

PROPOSAL NO. 3:

APPROVAL OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

Audit Committee Report

 

AUDIT COMMITTEE REPORT

The Audit Committee consists of the seven directors named below.below, including Jaime Chico Pardo who is anex officio member. Each member of the Audit Committee is an independent director as defined by applicable SEC rules and NYSE listing standards. In addition, the Board of Directors has determined that Mr. Paz, Mr. Davis, and Ms. Washington are “audit committee financial experts” as defined by applicable SEC rules and that Mr. Paz, Mr. Burke, Mr. Chico Pardo, Mr. Davis, Ms. Deily, and Ms. Washington satisfy the “accounting or related financial management expertise” criteria established by the NYSE.

Management is responsible for Honeywell’s internal controls and preparing the Company’s consolidated financial statements. The Company’s independent accountants are responsible for performing an independent audit of the consolidated financial statements in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and issuing a report thereon. The Committee is responsible for overseeing the conduct of these activities and, subject to shareowner ratification, appointing the Company’s independent accountants. As stated above and in the Committee’s charter, the Committee’s responsibility is one of oversight. The Committee does not provide any expert or special assurance as to Honeywell’s financial statements concerning compliance with laws, regulations or generally accepted accounting principles. In performing its oversight function, the Committee relies, without independent verification, on the information provided to it and on representations made by management and the independent accountants.

The Audit Committee reviewed and discussed Honeywell’s consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 20172018 with management and the independent accountants for 2017,2018, Deloitte & Touche LLP (“Deloitte”)(Deloitte). Management represented to the Audit Committee that the Company’s consolidated financial statements were prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. The Audit Committee discussed with Deloitte matters required by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board’s Auditing Standard No. 1301, Communications with Audit Committees. The Committee also reviewed, and discussed with management and Deloitte, management’s report and Deloitte’s report on internal control over financial reporting in accordance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

Honeywell’s independent accountants provided to the Audit Committee the written disclosures required by the applicable requirements of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board regarding the independent accountant’s communications with the audit committeeAudit Committee concerning independence, and the Committee discussed with the independent accountants their independence. The Audit Committee concluded that Deloitte’s provision of non-audit services, as detailed in the table onpage 82,84, to the Company and its affiliates is compatible with Deloitte’s independence.

Based on the Audit Committee’s discussion with management and the independent accountants and the Audit Committee’s review of the representations of management and the report of the independent accountants, the Committee recommended that the Board of Directors include the audited consolidated financial statements in the Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 20172018 filed with the SEC.

THE AUDIT COMMITTEE

The Audit Committee

George Paz (Chair)

Kevin Burke

D. Scott Davis

Linnet F. Deily

Judd Gregg

Robin Washington

Jaime Chico Pardo

((ex officio member)

 

2018LOGO     |     Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS A VOTE       |       81FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE APPOINTMENT OF DELOITTE AND TOUCHE LLP AS INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS.

Proposal No. 3: Approval of Independent Accountants

 

 

The Board of Directors
recommends a vote

FORthis proposal.

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019

85



09  |

PROPOSAL NO. 4:

SHAREOWNER PROPOSAL-RIGHT TO ACT BY WRITTEN CONSENT

PROPOSAL 4: SHAREOWNER PROPOSAL-RIGHT TO ACT BY WRITTEN CONSENT

This proposal has been submitted by John Chevedden, 2215 Nelson Ave., No. 205 Redondo Beach, CA 90278 (the beneficial owner of 100 shares of Common Stock):

Resolved, Shareholders request that our board of directors undertake such steps as may be necessary to permit written consent by shareholders entitled to cast the minimum number of votes that would be necessary to authorize the action at a meeting at which all shareholders entitled to vote thereon were present and voting. This written consent is to be consistent with applicable law and consistent with giving shareholders the fullest power to act by written consent consistent with applicable law. This includes shareholder ability to initiate any topic for written consent consistent with applicable law.

Hundreds of major companies enable shareholder action by written consent. Taking action by written consent in place of a meeting is a means shareholders can use to raise important matters outside the normal annual meeting cycle.

This proposal topic won majority shareholder support at 13 major companies in a single year. This included 67%-support at both Allstate and Sprint. Hundreds of major companies enable shareholder action by written consent. This proposal topic might have received a still higher vote than 67% at Allstate and Sprint if small shareholders had the same access to independent corporate governance data as large shareholders.

Shareholders can act by written consent to elect a new director to help deal with concerns like these and to avoid similar reoccurrences:

Chemical Spill/Toxic Release—Elkton, Maryland: $5 Million settlement with the Environmental Protection Agency for the cleanup of Elkton

Firehole Site

August 2018

Product Concerns—Purported Class Action lawsuit over allegedly defective smart meters

August 2018

Air Pollution/Gas Leak—Federal lawsuit over alleged Uranium Hexafluoride contamination from Metropolis, Illinois Plant

July 2018

Chemical Spill/Toxic Release—San Fernando Valley Area 1 Superfund Site, Utah: EPA ordered clean-up

June 2018

Employment Discrimination—Minnesota: Purported Class Action lawsuit over alleged unlawful age and gender discrimination and retaliation

March 2018

Chemical Spill/Toxic Release—New Jersey: Settlement with EPA for clean-up of Universal Oil Products Superfund Site

March 2018

Environmental Impact Concerns—New York: Groundwater contamination due to Perfluorooctanoic Acid leak

February 2018

Workplace Safety Concerns—Bendix: Asbestos-related claims

February 2018

Workplace Safety Concerns—Purported Class Action Suit over plan to terminate healthcare for retirees

December 2017

Taxes—United States: Criticism over alleged role in offshore tax havens

November 2017

Bribery or Corruption—Unaoil Scandal: Alleged involvement in bribery in Iraq

November 2017

Land Degradation—Duluth: $8 Million combined settlement including other companies for alleged environmental damage

June 2017

Chemical Spill/Toxic Release—New Jersey residents allege property depreciation due to byproduct disposal at manufacturing plants

June 2017

Labor Concerns—Purported Class Action to claim full medical coverage for retired employees

May 2017

Negligent Behavior—U.S. Army Alaska lawsuit over alleged violation of False Claims Act related to inflated energy savings

May 2017

86

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019



09  |

PROPOSAL NO. 4:

SHAREOWNER PROPOSAL-RIGHT TO ACT BY WRITTEN CONSENT

Chemical Spill/Toxic Release—Chicago International Airport Authority lawsuit over cleanup costs of groundwater contamination from former waste disposal facility

May 2017

Please vote yes:  Right to Act by Written Consent—Proposal 4

BOARD RECOMMENDATION

The Honeywell Board recommends that shareowners voteAGAINST this proposal for the following reasons:

LOGO

Shareowners holding 15% of our outstanding shares already have the right to call a special meeting at any time.The Audit CommitteeBoard believes that adoption of this proposal about shareowner action by written consent is unnecessary in light of the ability of shareowners to call special meetings based on the written request of 15% of outstanding shares. Allowing any shareowner, regardless of ownership interest, to initiate a potentially unlimited number of consent solicitations on any topic at any time could enable a single shareowner to advance its own narrow, parochial interests to the detriment of the majority of shareowners. The 15% threshold required to call a special meeting of shareowners guards against the exertion of undue influence by individual shareowners in pursuit of special interests that may be inconsistent with our shareowners’ long-term best interests. The Board believes this approach strikes the right balance between the rights of shareowners to have a voice in how Honeywell is governed, on the one hand, and protecting against abusive actions that may disrupt the Boardeffective management of Directorsour Company and be detrimental to shareowner interests, on the other. Conversely, the written consent procedure may not provide all shareowners with the same rights or adequate procedural protections, particularly with respect to having sufficient time to review or vote upon a proposed action.

LOGO

Majority of shareowners with whom we spoke believe that the appointmentright to act by written consent is not warranted where shareowners already have the right to call a special meeting. We have received this shareowner proposal six times in the past nine years. As part of Deloitte & Touche LLPour regular shareowner outreach program throughout this period, we have discussed this proposal with our largest shareowners. The overwhelming majority of the shareowners with whom we spoke believe that the right to act by written consent is not warranted where shareowners already have the right to call a special meeting.

LOGO

Action by written consent is an undemocratic means for 2018shareowners to express their views.Shareowner meetings are the most democratic way for shareowners to express their views on important financial, governance, or strategic questions related to Honeywell. In a shareowner meeting—whether a regular, annual meeting, or a special meeting called by shareowners holding 15% or more of our shares—voting occurs on a specified date that is publicly announced well in advance of the meeting. All interested parties have an opportunity to express their views and solicit proxies from shareowners. By contrast, action by written consent does not require notice to all shareowners about a proposed action nor does it permit differing views on a particular action or issue to be fully aired and debated. The Board does not believe that it is appropriate for some shareowners to take action affecting all shareowners without first informing all shareowners of the proposed action and allowing all shareowners to voice their views and vote on the proposed action.

The lack of transparency of the voting process when shareowners are able to act by written consent is of particular importance in light of the potential abilities of activist investors who may have a special agenda that may not be in the best interests of Honeywellall shareowners. The right to act by written consent would make it possible for a group of shareowners to accumulate a short-term voting position by borrowing shares from shareowners and our shareowners.then taking action without those shareowners knowing that their voting rights were being used to take such action. Temporary borrowings of shares by an investor could distort an investor’s true ownership interest, simply for the purpose of trying to cause an action to be effected by written consent outside of a shareowner meeting.

 

PROPOSAL NO. 3: APPROVAL OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
LOGO

In a Change in Control situation, action by written consent can undermine the Board’s ability to obtain the highest value for shareowners. The prohibition against shareowner action by written consent also serves a critically important function, since it is designed to encourage a party making an unsolicited bid for Honeywell to negotiate with the Board to reach terms that are fair and in the best interests of all shareowners. The Board weighs diligently and thoroughly the merits of takeover offers and is best positioned to evaluate those offers, to negotiate on behalf of all shareowners, and to protect shareowners from abusive takeover tactics. The ability of shareowners to approve the sale of the Company via written consent could result in shareowners receiving less value than they might otherwise receive as the Board may not have an opportunity to assess proposed actions or seek higher-value alternatives. Shareowners could also use a consent solicitation to remove and replace directors and effectively assume control without having to pay a control premium to shareowners. The significant ownership of Honeywell stock required of both the Board and management ensures alignment between shareowners, Board members, and management in the event of a Change in Control opportunity.

 

The Audit Committee, which consists entirely of independent directors, is directly responsible for the appointment, compensation, retention and oversight of the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm. The Audit Committee is recommending approval of its appointment of Deloitte & Touche LLP (“Deloitte”) as independent accountants for Honeywell to audit its consolidated financial statements for 2018 and to perform audit-related services. These services include reviewing our quarterly interim financial information and periodic reports and registration statements filed with the SEC and consultation in connection with various accounting and financial reporting matters. If shareowners do not approve, the Audit Committee will reconsider the appointment.

 

The Audit Committee reviews non-audit services proposed to be provided by Deloitte to determine whether they would be compatible with maintaining Deloitte’s independence. The Audit Committee has established policies and procedures for the engagement of Deloitte to provide non-audit services. The Audit Committee reviews and approves an annual budget for specific categories of non-audit services (that are detailed as to the particular services) which Deloitte is to be permitted to provide (those categories do not include any of the prohibited services in the auditor independence provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002). This review includes an evaluation of the possible impact of the provision of such services by Deloitte on the firm’s independence in performing its audit and audit-related services.

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019

87


The Audit Committee reviews the non-audit services performed by, and amount of fees paid to, Deloitte, by category in comparison to the pre-approved budget. The engagement of Deloitte to provide non-audit services that do not fall within a specific category of pre-approved services, or that would result in the total fees payable to Deloitte in any category exceeding the approved budgeted amount, requires the prior approval of the Audit Committee. Between regularly scheduled meetings of the Audit Committee, the Chair of the Committee may represent the entire Committee for purposes of the review and approval of any such engagement, and the Chair is required to report on all such interim reviews at the Committee’s next regularly scheduled meeting.


09  |

PROPOSAL NO. 4:

SHAREOWNER PROPOSAL-RIGHT TO ACT BY WRITTEN CONSENT

 

The Audit Committee and Honeywell’s Board of Directors believe that the continued retention of Deloitte as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm is in the best interests of the Company and its shareowners. Honeywell has been advised by Deloitte that it will have a representative present at the Annual Meeting who will be available to respond to appropriate questions. The representative will also have the opportunity to make a statement if he or she desires to do so.


Audit Fees and Non-Audit Fees for 2017 and 2016

Deloitte provided the following audit and other services during 2017 and 2016:

(in millions of $)  2017   2016   
Audit Fees $20.19   $21.32  Annual integrated audit of the Company’s consolidated financial statements, and internal control over financial reporting, statutory audits of foreign subsidiaries, attest services, consents, issuance of comfort letters and review of documents filed with the SEC.
Audit-Related Fees $0.67   $0.37  Audit-related services primarily associated with agreed upon procedures.
Tax Fees $0.03   $0.60  Tax compliance services were $0.03 in 2017 and $0.60 in 2016, relating primarily to global employment tax services in 2017 and global employment tax services and income tax compliance in 2016.
All Other Fees $0.0   $0.0   
Total Fees $20.89   $22.29   

Your Board of Directors unanimously recommends a vote FOR the approval of the appointment of Deloitte & Touche LLP as independent accountants.

 

82       |        LOGOProxy and Notice

Related Honeywell Corporate Governance Best Practices.In addition to providing for shareowners’ right to call special meetings, Honeywell has enhanced our governance practices over the past several years to facilitate broad shareowner representation. The Board believes the need for adoption of Annual Meetingthis proposal should be evaluated in the context of Shareowners     |     2018

Management Proposal >Proposal No. 4: Reduce Ownership Threshold Required to Call a Special Meeting of Shareownersour governance best practices, such as:

 

MANAGEMENT PROPOSAL

Proposal No. 4: REDUCE OWNERSHIP THRESHOLD REQUIRED TO CALL A SPECIAL MEETING OF SHAREOWNERS

Honeywell’s Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation currently provides that special meetings of shareowners may be called by the CEO, a majority of the Board of Directors or the holders of 20% or more of the outstanding shares of Honeywell Common Stock. After consideration of a shareowner proposal submitted for the 2018 Annual Meeting which sought a lower minimum ownership15% threshold for shareowners to be able to call special meetings which was subsequently withdrawn, as well as the current and emerging practices of other large companies, the Board of Directors has determined that the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation should be amended to allow holders of 15% or more of the outstanding shares of Honeywell Common Stockshareowner right to call a special meeting of shareowners and has unanimously adopted resolutions approving such(reduced from 20% in 2018 in response to shareowner sentiment);

The adoption of a proxy access By-laws amendment declaring their advisability and recommending approval of this amendment(instituted in 2015 in response to our shareowners.shareowner sentiment);

 

The Board believes that the 15% threshold strikes an appropriate balance between enhancing shareowner rights while not providing a mechanism for individualability of shareowners to pursue special interests that are not in the best interestssubmit proposals for presentation at an annual meeting;

The establishment of an independent Lead Director role and designation of the CompanyLead Director as a point of contact for shareowner communications (instituted in 2014 in response to shareowner feedback). See “Communicating With the Board” on page 97;

The annual election of directors and its shareownersmajority voting in general. The proposed threshold is also consistent with the proposition that special meetings should be limited to extraordinary matters and/or significant strategic concerns that require attention prior to the next annual meeting.uncontested director elections;

 

The Board also believes that the ownership threshold should be evaluated in light of the Company’s overall corporate governance practices which have been enhanced over the past several years to facilitate broader shareowner representation and to improve the practices, policies, and procedures of the Board. Enhancements include:

The adoption of a proxy access by-law (instituted in 2015 in response to shareowner sentiment);
The establishment of a Lead Director role and more recent changes to our Corporate Governance Guidelines to strengthen the role and expand the scope of the Lead Director’s responsibility (see “Board Leadership Structure-Lead Director”);
The authority of the Lead Director and Chair of the Corporate Governance and Responsibility Committee to call special meetings of the Board at any time for any reason;
The engagement by the Company’s directors and management with major institutional investors to solicit feedback on governance matters, executive compensation and shareowner proposals;
Evaluation of the skills and perspectives of incumbent directors prior to re-nomination to ensure that Honeywell’s governance needs are met;
Implementation of a more rigorous process around recruitment and selection of new Board members; and
Improvements to the Board’s self-evaluation process.

The affirmative vote of shareowners holding at least a majority of the shares of Common Stock issued and outstanding as of the record date is required for approval of this proposal. All abstentions and failures to return a proxy card will have the same effect as a vote against this proposal.

The proposed amendment to Honeywell’s Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation (the “Amendment”) is set forth in Appendix A to this proxy statement. If this proposal is approved by the requisite vote of shareowners, the Amendment will be filed with the State of Delaware.

The Board of Directors has adopted a corresponding amendment to the By-laws of the Company which would become effective upon shareowner approval of this proposal.

The Board of Directors unanimously recommends a vote FOR this proposal.

The Board of Directors
recommends a vote

FORthis proposal.

A 15% threshold strikes an appropriate balance between enhancing shareowner rights while not providing a mechanism for individual shareowners to pursue special interests that are not in the best interests of the Company and its shareowners.


2018     |     Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners       |       83

Shareowner Proposals> Proposal No. 5: Independent Board Chairman

The Board of Directors
recommends a vote


AGAINSTthis proposal.

Honeywell’s Board determined that it is in the best long-term interests of our Company to appoint CEO Darius E. Adamczyk to also serve as Chairman after the retirement of our current Chairman, David M. Cote, at the Annual Meeting of Shareowners.

The Board understands the importance of board leadership to its shareowners and has thoroughly explored the benefits and challenges of having Mr. Adamczyk serve as both Chairman and CEO through an open-minded and unbiased decision-making process.

During our shareowner engagement discussions, most of our shareowners expressed confidence that the Honeywell Board understands the importance of good corporate governance and has demonstrated the ability to make the right decision regarding its leadership structure—specifically the determination of whether and when to separate and combine the roles of Chairman and CEO.

SHAREOWNER PROPOSALS

Shareowners have given Honeywell notice of their intention to introduce the following proposals for consideration and action by the shareowners at the Annual Meeting. The proponents have provided the proposed resolutions and accompanying statements and Honeywell is not responsible for any inaccuracies contained in them.

For the reasons stated below each proposal, the Board of Directors unanimously recommends a vote AGAINST each of these proposals.

Proposal No. 5: INDEPENDENT BOARD CHAIRMAN

This proposal has been submitted by the Teamsters General Fund, 25 Louisiana Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20001 (the beneficial owner of 70 shares of Common Stock).

RESOLVED:The stockholders of Honeywell International Inc. (the “Company”), ask the board of directors to adopt a policy that, whenever possible, the board chairman should be a director who has not previously served as an executive officer of the Company and who is “independent” of management. For these purposes, a director shall not be considered “independent” if, during the last three years, he or she—

was affiliated with a company that was an advisor or consultant to the Company, or a significant customer or supplier of the Company;
was employed by or had a personal service contract(s) with the Company or its senior management;
was affiliated with a company or non-profit entity that received the greater of $2 million or 2% of its gross annual revenues from the Company;
had a business relationship with the Company that the Company had to disclose under the Securities and Exchange Commission regulations;
has been employed by a public company at which an executive officer of the Company serves as a director;
had a relationship of the sort described above with any affiliate of the Company; and,
was a spouse, parent, child, sibling or in-law of any person described above.

The policy should be implemented without violating any contractual obligation and should specify how to select an independent chairman if a current chairman ceases to be independent between annual shareholder meetings. Compliance with the policy may be excused if no independent director is available and willing to be chairman.

SUPPORTING STATEMENT:The Board of Directors, led by its chairman, is responsible for protecting shareholders’ long-term interests by providing independent oversight of management, including the Chief Executive Officer, in directing the corporation’s affairs. This oversight can be diminished when the chairman is not independent.

Board oversight is of critical importance at the Company given the recent leadership transition. In March 2017, Darius Adamczyk succeeded David Cote as CEO, who had served as both chairman and CEO since 2002. Mr. Cote, however, is to continue as a Company employee and chairman of the board through the 2018 shareholder meeting.

The timing of the CEO succession plan makes the 2018 shareholder meeting the right moment to adopt this policy for an independent chairman of the board. We view the alternative of a lead outside director, even one with a robust set of duties, as inadequate.

Several respected institutions recommend chair independence. CalPERS’ Corporate Core Principles and Guidelines state that “the independence of a majority of the Board is not enough:” “the leadershipat any time for any reason;

The elimination of the board must embrace independence, and it must ultimately change the waysupermajority voting provisions in which directors interact with management.”our charter documents;

 

We urge you to vote FOR this proposal.Shareowner approval of poison pills;

 

BoardThe clawback of Directors’ Recommendation—The Board of Directors unanimously recommends that the shareowners vote AGAINST this proposal for the following reasons:


84       |        Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners     |     2018

Shareowner Proposals> Proposal No. 5: Independent Board Chairman

Honeywell’s Board of Directors Has Chosen to Recombine the Roles of Chairman and CEO

Honeywell’s Board of Directors determined that it isincentive compensation in the best long-term interestsevent of a significant restatement; and

Robust shareowner outreach and engagement practices. See “Shareowner Outreach and Engagement” beginning on page 17 for a description of our Company to appoint CEO Darius E. Adamczyk to also serve as Chairman after the retirement of our current Chairman, David M. Cote, at the Annual Meeting of Shareowners on April 23, 2018. The Board understands the importance of board leadership to its shareowners and has thoroughly explored the benefits and challenges of having Mr. Adamczyk serve as both Chairman and CEO through an open-minded and unbiased decision-making process. The principle factors considered as part of that process were as follows:shareowner engagement activities.

The degree to which a unified leadership structure would enable Honeywell to successfully execute the significant portfolio restructuring actions we announced on October 10, 2017 and implement our strategy of refocusing on six key end markets where we can deploy our core technological strengths related to software, data analytics and the industrial internet of things.
An evaluation of the strength of Mr. Adamczyk’s character, the quality of his leadership, and the likelihood that Mr. Adamczyk’s service as both Chairman and CEO will enhance company performance.
Our longstanding track record of outperformance under a unified leadership structure in which the roles of Chairman and CEO were combined.
The highly independent nature of our board where, following Mr. Adamczyk’s appointment to Chairman, there will only be one non-independent director.
The role of the Lead Director and the demonstrated ability of the Lead Director to oversee critical decisions and governance effectiveness.
Discussions with our shareowners through our robust shareowner engagement program.
Only one of Honeywell’s 18 peers has separated the roles of Chairman and CEO and there is a lack of empirical evidence clearly demonstrating financial outperformance or improved governance outcomes for companies where the roles of Chairman and CEO are separated.

The Benefits of Unified Leadership During a Period of Significant Change

Honeywell is in the midst of executing a significant portfolio change and refocusing its overall strategy. On October 10, 2017, the Company announced the results of a comprehensive portfolio review led by Mr. Adamczyk with the support of our Board of Directors. As a result of that review, we intend to separately spin off our Homes product portfolio and ADI global distribution business, as well as our Transportation Systems business, into two stand-alone, publicly-traded companies. We also realigned our Smart Energy business, previously part of the Homes and Building Technologies segment, into the Process Solutions business within the Performance Materials and Technologies segment. Honeywell will now be focused on high-growth businesses in six attractive industrial end-markets where we can benefit from our common technologies, operating systems, and financial and business models. Our commercial strategy will now concentrate on using data analytics and software to drive value for our customers, whether in commercial buildings, aerospace, worker safety, energy or industrial production.

Given the breadthactions that Honeywell has taken to protect shareowner value, increase shareowner rights, and magnitude of these changes, our Board felt it was important to have decisive leadership under a single individual capable of executing a complex business plan with clear strategic purpose. A leadership structure where the roles of Chairman and CEO are separate risks undermining the requisite unity of purpose andensure director accountability, the Board believes is criticalthat adoption of this proposal would not add significant value to Honeywell’s success. Mr. Adamczyk has demonstrated the abilityCompany’s growth or performance or to lead decisively bothshareowners’ interests and instead would have the detrimental effect of providing the means for short-term or individual shareowners to act in his prior roles at Honeywell and more recently as CEO, where his strategic vision and clarity of purpose continue to be amply demonstrated.

An Evaluation of Mr. Adamczyk’s Character and Leadership Capabilities.

The Board has observedtheir own self-interest by advocating proposals that neither enhance shareowner value nor advance the strength of Mr. Adamczyk’s character, the quality of his leadership, his judgment and his integrity and determined that it is in the best interests of our Company and its shareowners for Mr. Adamczyk to serve as both Chairman and CEO at this time. The Board’s familiarity with Mr. Adamczyk extends back to early 2014 when Mr. Adamczyk became CEO of Honeywell’s Performance Materials and Technologies segment. In that capacity, Mr. Adamczyk attended all Board meetings and had frequent interaction with Board members. Mr. Adamczyk’s role as Honeywell’s Chief Operating Officer and his performance during the formal evaluation process undertaken by the Board prior to choosing a new CEO provided Board members with further insights into Mr. Adamczyk’s character. It is the Board’s judgment that Mr. Adamczyk has the temperament, leadership style, necessary skills, and integrity to lead Honeywell successfully as both Chairman and CEO. The Board does not believe that an independent Chairman will enhance company performance or improve governance effectiveness under Mr. Adamczyk’s leadership.whole.

 

Honeywell has a Longstanding Track Record of Success and Outperformance under a Unified Leadership Structure

The Board thoroughly considered whether a potential change in its current leadership structure would result in a better outcome in terms of financial performance, governance or oversight. In its deliberations, the Board carefully weighed the risks associated with altering a governance structure that has worked well for shareowners over many years. During the last 15 years, while the roles of Chairman and CEO were combined, our TSR was 635%, compared to 260% among the S&P 500

2018LOGO

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS A VOTEAGAINST THIS PROPOSAL.

88

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of ShareownersStatement  |  2019

       |       85



10  |

PROPOSAL 5:

SHAREOWNER PROPOSAL-REPORT ON LOBBYING PAYMENTS AND POLICY

Shareowner Proposals> Proposal No. 6: Report on Lobbying Payments and Policy

 

and 462% for our compensation peer group median. During that period, our market capitalization grew from $19.7 billion to $95.2 billion, we continued to enhance our governance and the Board architected a successful CEO succession process. Given these considerations, the Board does not currently believe that a change to Honeywell’s Board leadership structure will improve corporate performance or otherwise significantly benefit shareowners at this time.

The Board has Continued to Strengthen the Role of the Lead Director

In each of the last several years, the Board has taken decisive action to bolster the structure and scope of the Lead Director role to ensure governance effectiveness. These improvements include establishing written selection criteria for the Lead Director, providing formal opportunities for input on Board agendas as well as the quality and content of Board materials, and, most recently, formalizing the role of the Lead Director in the process for recruiting and selecting new Board members. The Board believes Mr. Chico Pardo’s performance as Lead Director over the past two years, during a period in which the Board oversaw the selection and installation of a new CEO and a significant portfolio review, demonstrates the effectiveness of a strong Lead Director in overseeing decisions critical to increasing shareowner value and maintaining strong corporate governance practices.

The Views of Our Shareowners

Honeywell has long maintained a robust shareowner engagement program in order for the Board to be fully informed on, and able to weigh carefully, the views of its shareowners before making critical decisions on executive compensation and governance topics. Before undertaking significant changes to Honeywell’s executive compensation programs in 2016, our Lead Director and the Chair of our Management Development & Compensation Committee met extensively with shareowners to solicit their views on how to best structure executive compensation so that it would create long-term shareowner value. Likewise, in considering whether to recombine the roles of Chairman and CEO, we extended meeting invitations to 14 of our largest shareowners, representing approximately 33.7% of the shares entitled to vote at our Annual Meeting of Shareowners, to meet one-on-one with our Lead Director and the Chair of our Corporate Governance and Responsibility Committee. Of these 14 shareowners, 11 accepted our invitation, representing approximately 32% of the shares entitled to vote. Management met with an additional 2 shareowners and provided that feedback to the Board.

During our meetings with shareowners to discuss the decision on governance structure, we heard a range of views. A minority of our shareowners felt strongly that separation of the roles of Chairman and CEO was preferred because separation can prevent a concentration of decision-making authority, improve a board’s overall effectiveness and increase accountability. Most of our shareowners did not have a strong view as to whether separating the roles of Chairman and CEO was automatically a better governance structure for Honeywell. However, all of our shareowners were interested in the Board’s ability to provide oversight and stewardship in a manner that would create long-term shareowner value and, if needed, constructively challenge management if the enterprise was on the cusp of decisions that would undermine long-term value creation. Our shareowners felt that Honeywell continues to benefit from a strong Lead Director supported by a highly independent board, capable of periodic refreshment with individuals of the highest calibre and appropriate viewpoints and skills to meet the Company’s evolving strategic needs. Most of our shareowners had confidence that the Honeywell Board understands the importance of good corporate governance and has demonstrated the ability to make the right decision regarding its leadership structure-specifically the determination of whether and when to separate and combine the roles of Chairman and CEO.

For the reasons stated above, your Board of Directors unanimously recommends a vote AGAINST this proposal.

Proposal No. 6: REPORTPROPOSAL 5: SHAREOWNER PROPOSAL-REPORT ON LOBBYING PAYMENTS AND POLICY

This proposal has been submitted by Azzad Asset Management (co-sponsored with Mercy Investment Services, Inc.), 3141 Fairview Park Drive, #460,Suite 355, Falls Church, VA 22042 (the beneficial owner of 14527 shares of Common Stock).

:

Whereas,we believe in full disclosure of our company’s direct and indirect lobbying activities and expenditures to assess whether Honeywell’s lobbying is consistent with Honeywell’s expressed goals and in the best interestinterests of shareowners.

Resolved,the shareowners of Honeywell International Inc. (“Honeywell”) request the preparation of a report, updated annually, disclosing:

 

1.

Company policy and procedures governing lobbying, both direct and indirect, and grassroots lobbying communications.

2.

Payments by Honeywell used for (a) direct or indirect lobbying or (b) grassroots lobbying communications, in each case including the amount of the payment and the recipient.

3.

Honeywell’s membership in and payments to any tax-exempt organization that writes and endorses model legislation.

4.

Description of management’s and the Board’s decision making process and oversight for making payments described in sections 2 and 3 above.

86       |        Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners     |     2018

Shareowner Proposals> Proposal No. 6: Report on Lobbying Payments and Policy

For purposes of this proposal, a “grassroots lobbying communication” is a communication directed to the general public that (a) refers to specific legislation or regulation, (b) reflects a view on the legislation or regulation and (c) encourages the recipient of the communication to take action with respect to the legislation or regulation. “Indirect lobbying” is lobbying engaged in by a trade association or other organization of which Honeywell is a member.

Both “direct and indirect lobbying” and “grassroots lobbying communications” include efforts at the local, state and federal levels.

The report shall be presented to the Corporate Governance and Responsibility Committee and posted on Honeywell’s website.

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

Supporting Statement

As shareowners, we encourage transparency and accountability in our company’s use of corporate funds to influence legislation and regulation. Honeywell spent $42$47.63 million from 2010-20162010-2017 on federal lobbying. These figures do not include lobbying expenditures to influence legislation in states, where Honeywell also lobbies but disclosure is uneven or absent. For example, Honeywell spent $4.63$5.15 million on lobbying in New Jersey for 2010-2016, and2010-2017. Honeywell’s lobbying for state tax creditson hydrofluorocarbons has attracted media scrutiny (“GWB Scandal Puts a Light on the Benefits of Lobbying,U.S. Industries Ask Trump Administration to Endorse Global Hyrdrofluorocarbon Deal,The RecordChemical and Engineering News, November 14, 2016), as has its lobbying on the Clean Water Act (“Report Links James River Discharges to Big-dollar Lobbyists,”Daily Press, March 8, 2015)June 4, 2018).

Honeywell is a member of the American Chemistry Council and Business Roundtable, which together spent over $54$43 million on lobbying in 2015for 2016 and 2016.2017 and is lobbying against the right of shareholders to file resolutions, and sits on the board of the Chamber of Commerce, which has spent over $1.4 billion on lobbying since 1998. Honeywell does not disclose its memberships in, or payments to, trade associations, or the amounts used for lobbying. We are concerned that Honeywell’s lack of trade association lobbying disclosure presents reputational risks. Absent a system of accountability, company assets could be used for objectives contrary to Honeywell’s long-term interests.

And Honeywell does not disclose its membership in or contributions to tax-exempt organizations that write and endorse model legislation, such as belonging to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). Honeywell’s ALEC membership has drawn scrutiny (“Wisconsin Poised to Pass ALEC’s Deadly Asbestos Bill,”PR Watch, March 20, 2014). Over 100 companies have publicly left ALEC, including 3M, Deere, GE and Merck.

We are concerned that Honeywell’s lack of lobbying disclosure presents reputational risks. For example, Honeywell signed an agreement to work with United Nations Environment to combat and raise awareness around climate change, yet the Chamber undermined the Paris climate accord. We urge Honeywell to expand its public disclosure of lobbying.

Board of Directors’ Recommendation—

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019

89



10  |

PROPOSAL 5:

SHAREOWNER PROPOSAL-REPORT ON LOBBYING PAYMENTS AND POLICY

BOARD RECOMMENDATION

The Honeywell Board of Directors unanimously recommends that the shareowners voteAGAINSTthis proposal for the following reasons:

Our disclosure on political lobbying and contributions is robust and was ranked in the first tier by the 2017 CPA-Zicklin Index of Corporate Political Disclosure and Accountability.

We believe that our disclosure on political lobbying and contributions already provides investors with more than sufficient information to assess whether Honeywell’s participation in the political process poses any investment risk whatsoever. Our disclosure is available on our website atwww.honeywell.com (see “Investors/Corporate Governance/Political Contributions”). In considering what to include in our disclosure, we made every effort to be both accurate, comprehensive and detailed including coverage of the following aspects of our political lobbying and contributions:

A list of our top legislative and regulatory priorities, most of which relate to key elements of our brand promise of making society safer and more energy efficient and improving public infrastructure;
Disclosure on our government relations organization;
Details on management and board oversight of our lobbying activities; and
Disclosure on the use of corporate funds for political contributions.

 

LOGO

The BoardOur disclosure on political lobbying and contributions is robust.We believe that our disclosure on political lobbying and contributions already provides investors with more than sufficient information to assess whether Honeywell’s participation in the political process poses any investment risk whatsoever, including by providing transparency regarding potential reputational risk and accountability for positions of Directors
recommends a vote
political interest that are promoted by the Company. Our disclosure is available on our website at www.honeywell.com (see “Investors/Corporate Governance/Political Contributions”). In considering what to include in our disclosure, we made every effort to be both accurate, comprehensive, and detailed, including coverage of the following aspects of our political lobbying and contributions:


AGAINSTthis proposal.

A list of our top legislative and regulatory priorities, most of which relate to key elements of our brand promise of making society safer and more energy efficient and improving public infrastructure;

Disclosure on our government relations organization;

Details on management and Board oversight of our lobbying activities; and

Disclosure on the use of corporate funds for political contributions.

 

LOGO

Our disclosure on political lobbying and contributions was ranked in the first tier by the 2018 CPA-Zicklin Index of Corporate Political Disclosure and Accountability. Our disclosure was assessed in 2018 by the Center for Political Accountability (CPA) which publishes annually the CPA-Zicklin Index of Corporate Political Disclosure and Accountability (CPA-Zicklin Index). CPA is a non-profit, non-partisan organization working to bring transparency and accountability to corporate political spending. The CPA-Zicklin Index measures the transparency, policies, and practices of the S&P 500. According to the 2018 CPA-Zicklin Index, our disclosure on political lobbying and contributions is in the “First Tier” for the fifth consecutive year with a score of 83%. Our score in 2018 puts us in the top 20% of the 500 companies assessed by CPA.

LOGO

WeAs part of our regular shareowner outreach program, we have discussed this shareowner proposal on multiple occasions with our largest shareowners who told us that our lobbying activities and membership in trade associations waswere not a source of concern or investment risk. We have received this shareowner proposal six times in the past seven years and on each occasion, the proposal has received support from 40% or fewer of our shareowners. Each time we received this proposal, we have discussed it with our largest shareowners during our regular engagement and outreach activities concerning governance and compensation matters. These shareowners have consistently told us that our lobbying activities and membership in trade associations is not viewed by them as a source of concern or investment risk. Moreover, the vast majority of our largest shareowners have told us that they are satisfied with our disclosure on lobbying, membership in trade associations, and political contributions, and find that our Board is providing appropriate oversight of our lobbying activities.

 

LOGO

We have not made any political contributions using corporate funds since at least 2009.

2009 and have no intention of making such political contributions in the future.We maintain a rigorous compliance processhave not made any political contributions using corporate funds since at least 2009 and have no present intention of making such political contributions. Honeywell uses the term “political contributions” to ensure thatmean contributions to candidates, political parties, “527 groups” or “527 organizations” such as governors associations and super PACs, and grass root campaigns intended to directly or indirectly influence the Company’s political activities are lawful, properly disclosed and aligned with our Codeoutcome of Business Conduct.any ballot measures.


2018     |     Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners       |       87

Shareowner Proposals> Proposal No. 6: Report on Lobbying Payments and Policy

Our disclosure was assessed in 2017 by the Center for Political Accountability (“CPA”) which publishes annually the CPA-Zicklin Index of Corporate Political Disclosure and Accountability (“CPA-Zicklin Index”). CPA is a non-profit, non-partisan organization working to bring transparency and accountability to corporate political spending. The CPA-Zicklin Index measures the transparency, policies and practices of the S&P 500. According to the 2017 CPA-Zicklin Index, our disclosure on political lobbying and contributions is in the “First Tier” for the fourth consecutive year with a score of 83%. Our score in 2017 puts us ahead of 430 of the 500 companies assessed by CPA.

As part of our regular shareowner outreach program, we have discussed this shareowner proposal on multiple occasions with our largest shareowners who told us that our lobbying activities and membership in trade associations were not a source of concern or investment risk.

We have received this shareowner proposal five times in the past six years and on each occasion, the proposal has received support from less than 37% of our shareowners. Each time we received this proposal, we have discussed it with our largest shareowners during our regular engagement and outreach activities concerning governance and compensation matters. These shareowners have consistently told us that our lobbying activities and membership in trade associations is not a source of concern or investment risk. Moreover, our largest shareowners have consistently told us that they are satisfied with our disclosure on lobbying, membership in trade associations and political contributions.

We have not made any political contributions using corporate funds since at least 2009 and have no intention of making such political contributions in the future.

We have not made any political contributions using corporate funds since at least 2009 and have no present intention of making such political contributions.

Even before 2009, any such contributions were extremely rare and for minimal amounts of less than $5,000. Similarly, we have not used corporate funds to directly or indirectly influence the outcome of any ballot measures and have no intention of doing so. Any use of corporate funds for political expenditures or ballot measures would require the prior approval of the Company’sour Senior Vice President and General Counsel. These policies on political contributions are imbedded in our Corporate Governance Guidelines and Code of Business Conduct.

With respect to tax-exempt organizations, such as 501(c)(4)s, where funds may be used for political purposes, we have made only two corporate contributions since 2009. Both contributions were disclosed on our website, and we also included these payments in the overall lobbying payments included in the publicly available filings required under the Lobbying Disclosure Act. The decision to contribute funds to these organizations was discussed with the Company’s Board of Directors.

We participate in the U.S. political process primarily through the non-partisan Honeywell submits public quarterly lobbying disclosures in accordance with federal lawInternational Political Action Committee (HIPAC), which provide timely and detailedis funded exclusively through voluntary contributions from eligible U.S.-based employees. HIPAC contributions can be viewed on the Federal Election Commission (FEC) website at www.fec.gov. These HIPAC contributions have from time to time included those made to 501(c)(4) organizations which are publicly disclosed to the FEC. Employees are not reimbursed, directly or indirectly, for political donations or expenses. The above information is available to shareowners on lobbying expenditures.the Company’s website at www.honeywell.com (see “Investors/Corporate Governance/Political Contributions”).

 

Each quarter we file a publicly available federal Lobbying Disclosure Act report. The report provides specific information on all Honeywell activities associated with influencing legislation through communications with any member or employee of a legislative body or with any covered executive branch office. The report also quantifies our expenditures for the quarter, describes the specific pieces of legislation that were the subject of our lobbying efforts and identifies the individuals who lobbied on behalf of our Company. Outside consultants who lobby on our behalf also file reports detailing their efforts on Honeywell’s behalf. All of these reports are available from the websites of the Secretary of the United States Senate and the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives.

90

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019



10  |

PROPOSAL 5:

SHAREOWNER PROPOSAL-REPORT ON LOBBYING PAYMENTS AND POLICY

 

Honeywell maintains a rigorous compliance process to ensure that the Company’s political activities are lawful, properly disclosed and aligned with our Code of Business Conduct.
LOGO

We have robust oversight of trade association memberships, and we instruct trade associations to which we pay nonde minimus membership dues not to use funds received from us for election-related activity. In 2019, we amended our Corporate Governance Guidelines to bolster our oversight of trade association memberships. Specifically, all 501(c)(6) trade associations to which Honeywell pays membership dues of more than $50,000 in any fiscal year must be approved by our General Counsel and our Senior Vice President, Global Government Relations. In addition, these organizations are instructed not to use funds received from Honeywell for any election-related activity; more specifically, we instruct these organizations not to use funds from Honeywell for political contributions at the federal, state or local levels, including contributions or expenditures in support of, or opposition to, candidates for any office, political parties, committees, “527 groups” or “527 organizations” such as governors associations and super PACs, or grass root campaigns intended to directly or indirectly influence the outcome of any ballot measures.

 

LOGO

We maintain a rigorous compliance process to ensure that the Company’s political activities are lawful, properly disclosed, and aligned with our Code of Business Conduct.We strive always to always engage responsibly in the political process and to ensure that our participation is consistent with all applicable laws and regulations, our principles of good governance, and our high standards of ethical conduct. Honeywell’s law department oversees our lobbying activities. Our Senior Vice President, Global Government Relations reports to our General Counsel and also works closely with our participation is fully consistent with all applicable laws and regulations, our principles of good governance, and our high standards of ethical conduct. Honeywell’s law department oversees our lobbying activities. The Senior Vice President, Global Government Relations reports to the General Counsel and also works closely with the Vice President, Global Compliance whose organization ensures compliance with our political spending policy. The General Counsel, Senior Vice President, Global Government Relations, and Vice President, Global Compliance meet regularly with our political spending policy. The General Counsel, Senior Vice President, Global Government Relations and Vice President, Global Compliance meet regularly with the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and his leadership team about legislative, regulatory, and political developments.

Each year theour Senior Vice President, Global Government Relations reports to the full Board of Directors on our global lobbying and government relations program. In addition, each year the Corporate Governance and Responsibility Committee (“CGRC”)(CGRC) receives a report on Honeywell’s policies and practices regarding political contributions and contributions to trade associations. The CGRC’s oversight of our political activities ensures compliance with applicable law and alignment with our policies and our Code of Business Conduct. As stated above, we do not make political contributions using corporate funds. A description of our policy and procedures governing lobbying can be found on our website atwww.honeywell.com (see “Investors/Corporate Governance/Political Contributions”).

 

LOGO

We submit public quarterly lobbying disclosures in accordance with federal law which provide timely and detailed information on lobbying expenditures. Each quarter, we file a publicly available federal Lobbying Disclosure Act report. The report provides specific information on all Honeywell activities associated with influencing legislation through communications with any member or employee of a legislative body or with any covered executive branch office. The report also quantifies our expenditures for the quarter, describes the specific pieces of legislation that were the subject of our lobbying efforts and identifies the individuals who lobbied on behalf of our Company. Outside consultants who lobby on our behalf also file reports detailing their efforts on Honeywell’s behalf. All of these reports are available on the websites of the Secretary of the United States Senate and the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives.

LOGO

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS A VOTEAGAINST THIS PROPOSAL.

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019

91



11  |

ADDITIONAL

INFORMATION

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

OTHER BUSINESS

The Board knows of no other matters to be presented for shareowner action at the meeting. If other matters are properly brought before the meeting, the persons named as proxies in the accompanying proxy card intend to vote the shares represented by them in accordance with their best judgment.

CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS

ForI  APPLICABLE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

Honeywell has written policies and procedures for approval or ratification of related person transactions. Article eight of Honeywell’s Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation provides that a related or interested party transaction shall not be void or voidable if such transaction is duly authorized or ratified by a majority of the reasons stated above, yourdisinterested members of the Board. Consistent with SEC rules, a related or interested party transaction includes a transaction between the Company and a director, director nominee or executive officer of the Company or a beneficial owner of more than 5% of the Company’s Common Stock or any of their respective immediate family members. Furthermore, the Honeywell Code of Business Conduct requires that each director and executive officer report to the Board of Directors unanimously recommendson an ongoing basis any relationship or transaction that may create or appear to create a vote AGAINST this proposal.conflict between the personal interests of those individuals (or their immediate family members) and the interests of the Company. A conflict, or appearance of a conflict, might arise, for example, by accepting gifts or loans from a current or potential customer, supplier or competitor, owning a financial interest in, or serving in a business capacity with, an outside enterprise that competes with or does or wishes to do business with the Company, serving as an intermediary for the benefit of a third party in transactions involving the Company, or using confidential Company information or other corporate assets for personal profit.

If a conflict of interest or related party transaction is of a type or a nature that falls within the scope of oversight of a particular Board committee, it is referred to that committee for review. The Board or the responsible committee must review any potential conflict and determine whether any action is required. This includes whether to authorize, ratify or direct the unwinding of the relationship or transaction under consideration, as well as ensure that appropriate controls are in place to protect Honeywell and its shareowners. In making that determination, the Board or responsible committee considers all relevant facts and circumstances, such as:

The benefits of the transaction to Honeywell;

The terms of the transaction and whether they are arm’s-length and in the ordinary course of the Company’s business;

The direct or indirect nature of the related person’s interest in the transaction;

The size and expected term of the transaction; and

Other facts and circumstances that bear on the materiality of the related person transaction under applicable law and listing standards.

Each director and officer also completes and signs a questionnaire at the end of each fiscal year to confirm that there are no material relationships or related person transactions between such individuals and the Company other than those previously disclosed to Honeywell. This ensures that all material relationships and related person transactions are identified, reviewed and disclosed in accordance with applicable policies, procedures and regulations.

I  RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS

Mr. John Cote, the son of Mr. David Cote, our former Chairman, is the founder, majority owner and chief executive officer of Industrial Inspection and Analysis, Inc. (IIA). IIA acquired QC Group, LLC in November 2015. QC Group provides metrology/dimensional inspection services to one of Honeywell’s businesses and to a facility managed by Honeywell under contract with the U.S. government as part of their quality control processes. The services are provided on arm’s length terms and conditions. QC Group received approximately $1.7 million from Honeywell in 2018 for payment of services. QC Group and Honeywell entered into the services arrangement prior to IIA’s acquisition of QC Group.

92

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019



11  |

ADDITIONAL

INFORMATION

STOCK OWNERSHIP INFORMATION

I  FIVE PERCENT OWNERS OF COMPANY STOCK

The following table lists information about those holders known to Honeywell to be the beneficial owners of 5% or more of our outstanding shares of Common Stock as of December 31, 2018.

 

88       |        Proxy

Name and Notice

Complete Mailing Address

Number
of Annual MeetingShares

Percent of Shareowners     |     2018
Common Stock
Outstanding(3)

The Vanguard Group

100 Vanguard Blvd., Malvern, PA 19355

53,758,990(1)

7.38%

BlackRock, Inc.

55 East 52nd Street, New York, NY 10055

44,463,473(2)

6.10%

(1)

The information is based on a Schedule 13G/A filed by The Vanguard Group with the SEC on February 12, 2019. The Vanguard Group and certain related entities have sole voting power in respect of 870,705 shares, shared voting power in respect of 179,881 shares, sole dispositive power in respect of 52,704,239 shares, and shared dispositive power in respect of 1,054,751 shares.

(2)

The information is based on a Schedule 13G/A filed by BlackRock, Inc. with the SEC on February 4, 2019. BlackRock, Inc. has sole voting power in respect of 39,562,368 shares and sole dispositive power in respect of 44,463,473 shares.

(3)

Based on 728, 369, 863 shares of Common Stock outstanding on March 1, 2019.

I  STOCK OWNERSHIP OF DIRECTORS AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

The following table lists information as of March 1, 2019 about the beneficial ownership of Common Stock by each director or director nominee, by each executive officer named in the Summary Compensation Table, and by all directors (including nominees) and executive officers of Honeywell as a group. Except as otherwise noted, the individuals listed in the following table have the sole power to vote or transfer the shares reflected in the table.

                     
   

Components of Beneficial Ownership

(Number of Shares)

     
                 
        

Name(1)

  Common
Stock
Beneficially
Owned
   

Right To

Acquire(2)

   Other Stock-Based
Holdings(3)
   Total Number
of Shares(4)
 
                     

Darius Adamczyk

  

 

61,373

 

  

 

806,043

 

  

 

3,059

 

  

 

870,475

 

Duncan B. Angove

  

 

 

  

 

574

 

  

 

1,689

 

  

 

2,263

 

William S. Ayer

  

 

526

 

  

 

8,159

 

  

 

2,805

 

  

 

11,490

 

Kevin Burke

  

 

13,947

 

  

 

27,451

 

  

 

9,350

 

  

 

50,748

 

Jaime Chico Pardo

  

 

13,609

 

  

 

27,451

 

  

 

34,429

 

  

 

75,489

 

D. Scott Davis

  

 

21,814

 

  

 

16,951

 

  

 

18,257

 

  

 

57,022

 

Linnet F. Deily

  

 

7,135

 

  

 

13,879

 

  

 

16,354

 

  

 

37,368

 

Judd Gregg

  

 

5,827

 

  

 

22,201

 

  

 

13,261

 

  

 

41,289

 

Clive Hollick

  

 

5,243

 

  

 

27,451

 

  

 

24,265

 

  

 

56,959

 

Grace D. Lieblein

  

 

4,956

 

  

 

13,879

 

  

 

6,142

 

  

 

24,977

 

George Paz

  

 

10,755

 

  

 

27,451

 

  

 

6,142

 

  

 

44,348

 

Robin L. Washington

  

 

4,936

 

  

 

13,879

 

  

 

12,004

 

  

 

30,819

 

Gregory P. Lewis

  

 

13,257

 

  

 

98,878

 

  

 

723

 

  

 

112,858

 

Timothy O. Mahoney

  

 

205,412

 

  

 

797,160

 

  

 

83,174

 

  

 

1,085,746

 

Krishna Mikkilineni

  

 

114,185

 

  

 

692,587

 

  

 

2,385

 

  

 

809,157

 

Mark R. James

  

 

144,800

 

  

 

617,708

 

  

 

5,749

 

  

 

768,257

 

Thomas A. Szlosek (Retired CFO)

  

 

 

  

 

187,752

 

  

 

46,971

 

  

 

234,723

 

 

All directors, nominees and executive officers as a group, including the above-named persons (23 people)

 

   

 

868,858

 

 

 

   

 

4,122,345

 

 

 

   

 

346,557

 

 

 

   

 

5,336,760

 

 

 

(1)

c/o Honeywell International Inc., 115 Tabor Road, Morris Plains, New Jersey 07950.

(2)

Includes shares which the named individual or group has the right to acquire through the exercise of vested stock options, and shares which the named individual or group has the right to acquire through the vesting of RSUs and stock options, within 60 days of March 1, 2019.

(3)

Includes shares and/or share-equivalents in deferred accounts, as to which no voting or investment power exists.

(4)

The total beneficial ownership for any individual and the total beneficial ownership for the group are both less than 1% of the shares of Common Stock outstanding as of March 1, 2019.

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019

93



11  |

ADDITIONAL

INFORMATION

Voting Procedures

 

VOTING PROCEDURESSECTION 16(A) BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP REPORTING COMPLIANCE

Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act requires our directors, executive officers, and persons who own more than 10% of our Common Stock to file reports of ownership and changes in ownership of our Common Stock with the SEC. Based on the information available to us during fiscal year 2018, we believe that all applicable Section 16(a) reports, except one, were timely filed. One Form 4 filed on behalf of Vimal Kapur to reflect vesting of restricted stock units was filed late due to an administrative error.

YOUR VOTE IS VERY IMPORTANT

Whether or not you plan to attend the meeting, please take the time to vote your shares as soon as possible.

NOTICE AND ACCESS

The SEC’s “Notice and Access” rule allows companies to deliver a Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials (“Notice(Notice of Internet Availability”)Availability) to shareowners in lieu of a paper copy of the proxy statementProxy Statement and related materials and the Company’s Annual Report to Shareowners (the “Proxy Materials”)(Proxy Materials). The Notice of Internet Availability provides instructions as to how shareowners can access the Proxy Materials online, contains a listing of matters to be considered at the meeting, and sets forth instructions as to how shares can be voted.Shares must be voted either by telephone, online or by completing and returning a proxy card. Shares cannot be voted by marking, writing on and/or returning the Notice of Internet Availability. Any Notices of Internet Availability that are returned will not be counted as votes.Instructions for requesting a paper copy of the Proxy Materials are set forth on the Notice of Internet Availability.

 

LOGO

Proxy Materials are Available at www.proxyvote.com. You will need to enter the 16-digit control number located on the Notice of Internet Availability or proxy card.

IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING AVAILABILITY OF PROXY MATERIALS

VOTING PROCEDURES

Proxy Materials are available atwww.proxyvote.com. You will need to enter the 16-digit control number located on the Notice of Internet Availability or proxy card.

IMETHODS OF VOTING

Shareowners of RecordRecord.

If your shares are registered directly in your name with Honeywell’s transfer agent, EQ Shareowner Services, you are considered the shareowner of record of those shares. Shareowners of record can vote via the Internet atwww.proxyvote.com,, by scanning the QR code with a mobile device, by calling +1 (800) 690-6903 or by signing and returning a proxy card. Votes submitted by Internet, mobile device or telephone must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on April 22, 2018.

28, 2019.

Beneficial OwnersOwners.

If your shares are held in a stock brokerage account, by a bank, broker, trustee, or other nominee, you are considered the beneficial owner of shares held in street name and these proxy materialsProxy Materials are being forwarded to you by your bank, broker, trustee or nominee who is considered the shareowner of record of those shares. As the beneficial owner, you have the right to direct your bank, broker, trustee or nominee on how to vote via the Internet or by telephone or mobile device if the bank, broker, trustee or nominee offers these options or by signing and returning a proxy card. Your bank, broker, trustee or nominee will send you instructions for voting your shares. NYSE rules prohibit brokers from voting on Proposal Nos. 1,2, 4-61, 2, 4 and 5 without receiving instructions from the beneficial owner of the shares. In the absence of instructions, shares subject to such broker non-votes will not be counted as voted or as present or represented on those proposals and so will have no effect on the vote.Please note that brokers

Brokers may not vote your shares on the election of directors in the absence of your specific instructions as to how to vote so we encourage you to provide instructions to your broker regarding the voting of your shares. Votes directed by Internet, mobile device or telephone through such a bank, broker, trustee or nominee must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on April 22, 2018.

28, 2019.

Participants in Honeywell Savings PlansPlans.

Participants in the Honeywell stock funds within Honeywell savings plans are considered the beneficial owners of the shares held by the savings plans. The trustee of each savings plan is the shareowner of record for shares held by Honeywell stock funds within that plan. Participants in Honeywell stock funds within Honeywell savings plans can direct the trustee of the relevant plan to vote their shares via the Internet atwww.proxyvote.com,, by scanning the QR Code with a mobile device, by calling (800) 690-6903 or by signing and returning a proxy card.

The trustee will vote shares as to which no directions are received in the same ratio as shares with respect to which directions have been received from other participants in the relevant plan, unless contrary to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). So we encourage you to provide instructions to the trustee regarding the voting of your shares. Directions provided by Internet, mobile device or telephone must be received by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on April 19, 2018.25, 2019.

 

LOGO

2018Your Vote is Very Important to us. |     Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners

       |       89Whether or not you plan to attend the meeting, please take the time to vote your shares as soon as possible.

94

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019



Voting Procedures

 

ADDITIONAL

INFORMATION

IREVOKING YOUR PROXY

Whether you vote or direct your vote by mail, telephone, mobile device, or via the Internet, if you are a shareowner of record or a participant in Honeywell stock funds within Honeywell savings plans, unless otherwise noted, you may later revoke your proxy by:

 

Sending a written statement to that effect to the Corporate Secretary of Honeywell;
Submitting a properly signed proxy with a later date;
Voting by telephone, mobile device or via the Internet at a later time (if initially able to vote in that manner) so long as such vote or voting direction is received by the applicable date and time set forth above for shareowners of record and participants in Honeywell savings plans; or
Voting in person at the Annual Meeting (except for shares held in the savings plans).

Sending a written statement to that effect to the Corporate Secretary of Honeywell;

 

Submitting a properly signed proxy with a later date;

Voting by telephone, mobile device or via the Internet at a later time (if initially able to vote in that manner) so long as such vote or voting direction is received by the applicable date and time set forth above for shareowners of record and participants in Honeywell savings plans; or

Voting in person at the Annual Meeting (except for shares held in the savings plans).

If you hold your shares through a bank, broker, trustee, or nominee and you have instructed the bank, broker, trustee, or nominee to vote your shares, you must follow the directions received from your bank, broker, trustee or nominee to change those instructions.

IQUORUM; VOTE REQUIRED; ABSTENTIONS AND BROKER NON-VOTES

The required quorum for the transaction of business at the meeting is a majority of the total outstanding shares of Common Stock entitled to vote at the meeting, either present in person or represented by proxy.

Regarding Proposal No. 1, Honeywell’s By-laws provide that in any uncontested election of directors (an election in which the number of nominees does not exceed the number of directors to be elected), any nominee who receives a greater number of votes cast “FOR” his or her election than votes cast “AGAINST” his or her election will be elected to the Board of Directors. Shares not represented in person or by proxy at the Annual Meeting, abstentions and broker non-votes will have no effect on the election of directors. The By-laws also provide that any incumbent nominee who does not receive a majority of votes cast in an uncontested election is expected to promptly tender his or her resignation to the Chairman of the Board following the certification of the shareowner vote. This resignation will be promptly considered through a process managed by the Corporate Governance and Responsibility Committee, excluding any director nominees who did not receive a majority of votes cast to elect him or her to the Board.

The affirmative vote of a majority of the issued and outstanding shares of Common Stock is required for approval of Proposal No. 4. Because approval is based on a threshold of a majority of all shares outstanding, abstentions and failures to vote or return a proxy will have the same effect as votes against this proposal.

The affirmative vote of a majority of shares present or represented and entitled to vote on each of Proposal Nos. 2 3,through 5 and 6 is required for approval of these proposals. Abstentions will be counted toward the tabulation of votes present or represented on these proposals and will have the same effect as votes against these proposals. Shares not represented in person or by proxy at the Annual Meeting and broker non-votes will have no effect on the vote outcome of these proposals. While the votes on Proposal No. 2 is advisory and not binding on the Board or the Company, the Board will take into consideration the outcome of the votes when making future decisions regarding executive compensation.

OTHER BUSINESS

The Board knows of no other matters to be presented for shareowner action at the meeting. If other matters are properly brought before the meeting, the persons named as proxies in the accompanying proxy card intend to vote the shares represented by them in accordance with their best judgment.

ICONFIDENTIAL VOTING POLICY

It is our policy that any proxy, ballot or other voting material that identifies the particular vote of a shareowner and contains the shareowner’s request for confidential treatment will be kept confidential, except in the event of a contested proxy solicitation or as may be required by law. We may be informed whether or not a particular shareowner has voted and will have access to any comment written on a proxy, ballot or other material and to the identity of the commenting shareowner. Under the policy, the inspectors of election at any shareowner meeting will be independent parties unaffiliated with Honeywell.

IRESULTS OF THE VOTE

We will announce preliminary voting results at the Annual Meeting and publish them on our websitewww.honeywell.com. www.honeywell.com. Voting results will also be disclosed on a Form 8-K filed with the SEC within four business days after the Annual Meeting, which will be available on our website.

90       |        Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners     |     2018

Attendance At The Annual Meeting

ISHARES OUTSTANDING

At the close of business on February 23, 2018,March 1, 2019, there were 748,380,770728,369,863 shares of Common Stock outstanding. Each share outstanding as of the February 23, 2018March 1, 2019 record date is entitled to one vote at the Annual Meeting on each matter properly brought before the meeting.

IELIMINATING DUPLICATE MAILINGS

Beneficial owners of Common Stock who share a single address may receive only one copy of the Notice of Internet Availability or the Proxy Materials, as the case may be, unless their broker, bank, trustee or nominee has received contrary instructions from any beneficial owner at that address. This practice, known as “householding,” is designed to reduce printing and mailing costs. If any beneficial shareowner(s) sharing a single address wish to discontinue householding and receive a separate copy of the Notice of Internet Availability or the Proxy Materials, as the case may be, they may contact Broadridge, either by calling (866) 540-7095, or by writing to Broadridge, Householding Department, 51 Mercedes Way, Edgewood, New York, 11717.

 

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019

95



11  |

ADDITIONAL

INFORMATION

I  EXPENSES OF SOLICITATION

Honeywell pays the cost of preparing, assembling, and mailing this proxy-soliciting material. In addition to the use of the mail, proxies may be solicited by Honeywell officers and employees by telephone or other means of communication. Honeywell pays all costs of solicitation, including certain expenses of brokers and nominees who mail Proxy Material to their customers or principals.

IELECTRONIC ACCESS TO THE PROXY MATERIALS

You can elect to receive future proxy materialsProxy Materials by email, which will save us the cost of producing and mailing documents to you. Shareowners may enroll to receive proxy materialsProxy Materials electronically as follows:

 

Shareowners of Record:If you are a registered shareowner, you may request electronic delivery when voting for this meeting on the Internet atwww.proxyvote.com.
LOGO

Shareowners of Record.If you are a registered shareowner, you may request electronic delivery when voting for this meeting on the Internet at www.proxyvote.com.

 

LOGO

Beneficial Holders.If your shares are not registered in your name, check the information provided to you by your bank or broker, or contact your bank or broker for information on electronic delivery service.

Beneficial Holders: If your shares are not registered in your name, check the information provided to you by your bank or broker, or contact your bank or broker for information on electronic delivery service.

ATTENDANCE AT THE ANNUAL MEETING

Attendance at the Annual Meeting is limited to our shareowners or their legal proxy holders. If you are a shareowner of record and plan to attend the meeting, please mark the appropriate box on your proxy card or follow the instructions provided when you vote via the Internet, mobile device or telephone. If your shares are held by a bank, broker, trustee or nominee and you plan to attend, please send written notification to Investor Relations, Honeywell, 115 Tabor Road, Morris Plains, NJNew Jersey 07950, and enclose evidence of your ownership of shares of Common Stock as of February 23, 2018March 1, 2019 (such as a letter from the bank, broker, trustee or nominee confirming your ownership or a bank or brokerage firm account statement). The names of all those planning to attend will be placed on an admission list held at the registration desk at the entrance to the meeting.All shareowners attending the meeting will be asked to provide proof of identification.

LOGO

Please Bring Identification.All shareowners attending the meeting will be asked to provide proof of identification.

If your shares are held by a bank, broker, trustee, or nominee and you have not provided advance written notification that you will attend the meeting, you will be admitted to the meeting only if you present evidence of ownership of shares of Common Stock as of February 23, 2018.

March 1, 2019.

If you are not a shareowner, you will be admitted only if you have a valid legal proxy and form of photo identification. If you are receiving a legal proxy from a shareowner of record, you must bring a form of photo identification and a legal proxy from the record holder to you. If you are receiving a legal proxy from a street name shareowner, you must bring a form of photo identification, a legal proxy from the record holder (i.e., the bank, broker or other holder of record) to the street name holder that is assignable, and a legal proxy from the street name holder to you. We reserve the right to limit the number of representatives for any shareowner who may attend the meeting.

2018     |     Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners       |       91

Other InformationSHAREOWNER PROPOSALS AND BOARD NOMINEES

OTHER INFORMATION

ISHAREOWNER PROPOSALS FOR 20192020 ANNUAL MEETING OF SHAREOWNERS

In order for a shareowner proposal to be considered for inclusion in Honeywell’s Proxy Statement for the 2020 Annual Meeting of Shareowners pursuant to Rule 14a-8 of the SEC, the proposal must be received at the Company’s offices no later than the close of business on November 15, 2019. Proposals submitted thereafter will be opposed as not timely filed.

In order for a shareowner proposal to be considered for inclusion in Honeywell’s proxy statement for the 2019 Annual Meeting of Shareowners pursuant to Rule 14a-8 of the SEC, the proposal must be received at the Company’s offices no later than the close of business on November 8, 2018. Proposals submitted thereafter will be opposed as not timely filed.
If a shareowner intends to present a proposal for consideration at the 2019 Annual Meeting of Shareowners pursuant to the procedures contemplated in Honeywell’s By-laws, outside the processes of SEC Rule 14a-8 or the proxy access provisions in Honeywell’s By-laws, Honeywell must receive notice of such proposal not earlier than December 24, 2018 and not later than January 23, 2019. Otherwise the proposal will be considered untimely under Honeywell’s By-laws. The notice must contain a brief description of the proposal, the reasons for conducting such business, the name and address of the shareowner and the number of shares of Honeywell’s Common Stock the shareowner beneficially owns, and any material interest of the shareowner in such business, all as provided in Honeywell’s By-laws. If this information is not supplied as provided in Honeywell’s By-laws, the proposal will not be considered at the 2019 Annual Meeting of Shareowners. In addition, Honeywell’s proxies will have discretionary voting authority on any vote with respect to such proposal, if presented at the meeting, without including information regarding the proposal in its proxy materials.

If a shareowner intends to present a proposal for consideration at the 2020 Annual Meeting of Shareowners pursuant to the procedures contemplated in Honeywell’s By-laws, outside the processes of SEC Rule 14a-8 or the proxy access provisions in Honeywell’s By-laws, Honeywell must receive notice of such proposal not earlier than December 30, 2019 and not later than January 29, 2020. Otherwise, the proposal will be considered untimely under Honeywell’s By-laws. The notice must contain a brief description of the proposal, the reasons for conducting such business, the name and address of the shareowner and the number of shares of Honeywell’s Common Stock the shareowner beneficially owns, and any material interest of the shareowner in such business, all as provided in Honeywell’s By-laws. If this information is not supplied as provided in Honeywell’s By-laws, the proposal will not be considered at the 2020 Annual Meeting of Shareowners. In addition, Honeywell’s proxies will have discretionary voting authority on any vote with respect to such proposal, if presented at the meeting, without including information regarding the proposal in its Proxy Materials.

Any shareowner that wisheswishing to submit a shareowner proposal should send it to thenotice to: Corporate Secretary, Honeywell, 115 Tabor Road, Morris Plains, New Jersey 07950.

 

DIRECTOR NOMINATIONS

96

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019



11  |

ADDITIONAL

INFORMATION

 

I  DIRECTOR NOMINATIONS FOR 2020 ANNUAL MEETING

Proxy Access Nominations

Nominations.Honeywell’s By-laws allow a single shareowner or a group of up to 20 shareowners who have held at least 3% of Honeywell stock for at least three years to submit director nominees (the greater of 20% of the Board or two directors) for inclusion in Honeywell’s proxy statementProxy Statement if the shareowner(s) and the nominee(s) satisfy the requirements specified in Honeywell’s By-laws. Notice must be received by the Corporate Secretary of Honeywell at the address above115 Tabor Road, Morris Plains, New Jersey 07950 not earlier than the 150th day and not later than the close of business on the 120th day prior to the first anniversary of the date the definitive proxy statementProxy Statement was first released to shareowners in connection with the preceding year’s Annual Meeting. Honeywell did not receive any such nominations for the 2019 Annual Meeting of Shareowners.

Non-Proxy Access Nominations

Nominations.Honeywell’s By-laws state that any shareowner of record entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting who intends to make a nomination for director must notify the Corporate Secretary of Honeywell in writing not more than 120 days and not less than 90 days prior to the first anniversary of the preceding year’s Annual Meeting. The notice must meet other requirements contained in the By-laws, a copy of which can be obtained from the Corporate Secretary ofSecretary. Honeywell at the address above.

EXPENSES OF SOLICITATION

Honeywell pays the cost of preparing, assembling and mailing this proxy-soliciting material. In addition to the use of the mail, proxies may be solicited by Honeywell officers and employees by telephone or other means of communication. Honeywell pays all costs of solicitation, including certain expenses of brokers and nominees who mail proxy material to their customers or principals. In addition, Georgeson Inc. has been retained to assist in the solicitation of proxiesdid not receive any such nominations for the 20182019 Annual Meeting of Shareowners.

Shareowner Recommendations.Shareowners wishing to recommend a director candidate to the CGRC for its consideration should write to the CGRC, in care of Corporate Secretary, Honeywell, 115 Tabor Road, Morris Plains, New Jersey 07950. To receive meaningful consideration, a recommendation should include the candidate’s name, biographical data, and a description of his or her qualifications in light of the criteria described in this Proxy Statement.

WHERE SHAREOWNERS CAN FIND MORE INFORMATION

I  SEC FILINGS AND REPORTS

Our Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, and any amendments to those reports, are available free of charge on our website at www.honeywell.com under the heading “Investor Relations” (see “SEC Filings and Reports”) immediately after they are publicly filed or furnished.

I  CORPORATE GOVERNANCE DOCUMENTS

Please visit our website at www.honeywell.com (see “Investors/Corporate Governance”) to view our governance documents, including our Charter and By-laws, Corporate Governance Guidelines, Code of Business Conduct, and Board committee charters.

I  COMMUNICATING WITH MANAGEMENT AND INVESTOR RELATIONS

Our Investor Relations department is the primary point of contact for shareowner interaction with Honeywell. Shareowners should write to or call: Vice President, Investor Relations, Honeywell, 115 Tabor Road, Morris Plains, New Jersey 07950 or +1 (973) 455-2222.

I  COMMUNICATING WITH THE BOARD

Shareowners, as well as other interested parties, may communicate directly with our Lead Director for an upcoming meeting, the non-employee directors as a feegroup, or individual directors by writing to: Corporate Secretary, Honeywell, 115 Tabor Road, Morris Plains, New Jersey 07950. Honeywell’s Corporate Secretary reviews and promptly forwards communications to the directors as appropriate. Communication involving substantive accounting or auditing matters are forwarded to the Chair of approximately $12,500 plus associated coststhe Audit Committee. Certain items that are unrelated to the duties and expenses.responsibilities of the Board will not be forwarded such as: business solicitation or advertisements; product or service related inquires; junk mail or mass mailings; resumes or other job-related inquires; spam; and overly hostile, threatening, potentially illegal or similarly unsuitable communications.

I  OUR WEBSITE

We encourage our shareowners to visit the Investors section of our website for more information about our financial, corporate governance, corporate responsibility and sustainability policies, practices and performance.

 

LOGO

Visit Our Website at investor.honeywell.com.

By Order of the Board of Directors,

Anne T. Madden
Senior Vice President, General Counsel
and Corporate Secretary
March 8, 2018

92       |        Proxy and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners     |     2018

Appendix A

APPENDIX A

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO HONEYWELL’S AMENDED AND RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION TO REDUCE THE OWNERSHIP THRESHOLD FOR SHAREOWNERS TO CALL A SPECIAL MEETING

The text of the proposed amendment is marked to reflect the proposed changes.

The sixth paragraph of Article EIGHTH of Honeywell’s Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation is amended to read as follows:

Except as otherwise required by law and subject to the rights of the holders of the Preferred Stock pursuant to the provisions of this Certificate of Incorporation, special meetings of stockholders may be called only by (i) the Chief Executive Officer, (ii) the Board of Directors, pursuant to a resolution approved by a majority of the then authorized number of Directors of the corporation (as determined in accordance with the By-laws), or (iii) theSecretary upon the written requestof holders having an aggregate “net long position” of not less than twenty (a “Special Meeting Request”) of holders Owning (as such term is defined in Section 3 of Article II of the By-laws) not less than 15%of the outstanding shares of the Corporation’s Common Stock as of the date of such request (“Special Meeting Requestthe “Requisite Percent”), filed with the Secretary of the Corporation and otherwise in accordance with the By-laws.“Netlongposition” shall be determined with respect to each requesting holder in accordance with the definition thereof set forth in Rule 14e-4 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, provided that (x) for purposes of such definition, in determining such holder’s “short position,” the reference in such Rule to “the date the tender offer is first publicly announced or otherwise made known by the bidder to the holders of the security to be acquired” shall be the date of the relevant Special Meeting Request and the reference to the “highest tender offer price or stated amount of the consideration offered for the subject security” shall refer to the closing sales price of the Corporation’s common stock on the New York Stock Exchange on such date (or, if such date is not a trading day, the next succeeding trading day) and (y) the net long position of such holder shall be reduced by the number of shares as to which such holder does not, or will not, have the right to vote or direct the vote at the Special Meeting or as to which such holder has entered into any derivative or other agreement, arrangement or understanding that hedges or transfers, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, any of the economic consequences of ownership of such shares. Whether the requesting holders have complied with the requirements of this Article and related provisions of the By-laws shall be determined in good faith by the Board, which determination shall be conclusive and binding on the Corporation and the stockholders.

A-1

Appendix B

 

LOGO

Anne T. Madden

Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary

March 14, 2019

LOGO

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019

97



A-1  |

APPENDIX A:

RECONCILIATION OF NON-GAAP FINANCIAL MEASURES

APPENDIX B

A: RECONCILIATION OFNON-GAAP FINANCIAL MEASURES

(1) Reconciliation of Cash Provided by Operating Activities to Adjusted Free Cash Flow and Calculation of Adjusted Free Cash Flow Conversion

                                           

($M)

    2013     2014     2015     2016     2017     2018 
                        

Cash provided by operating activities

    

$

4,335

 

    

$

5,080

 

    

$

5,519

 

    

$

5,498

 

    

$

5,969

 

    

$

6,434

 

Expenditures for property, plant and equipment

    

$

(947

    

$

(1,094

    

$

(1,073

    

$

(1,095

    

$

(1,031

    

$

(828

    

 

 

     

 

 

     

 

 

     

 

 

     

 

 

     

 

 

 

Free cash flow

    

$

3,388

 

    

$

3,986

 

    

$

4,446

 

    

$

4,403

 

    

$

4,935

 

    

$

5,606

 

Separation cost payments

    

$

 

    

$

 

    

$

 

    

$

 

    

$

 

    

$

424

 

    

 

 

     

 

 

     

 

 

     

 

 

     

 

 

     

 

 

 

Adjusted free cash flow

    

$

3,388

 

    

$

3,986

 

    

$

4,446

 

    

$

4,403

 

    

$

4,935

 

    

$

6,030

 

    

 

 

     

 

 

     

 

 

     

 

 

     

 

 

     

 

 

 

Net income attributable to Honeywell

    

$

3,922

 

    

$

4,262

 

    

$

4,771

 

    

$

4,812

 

    

$

1,545

 

    

$

6,765

 

Pension mark-to-market expense(1)

    

$

38

 

    

$

179

 

    

$

43

 

    

$

215

 

    

$

67

 

    

$

28

 

Debt refinancing expense(1)

    

$

 

    

$

 

    

$

 

    

$

93

 

    

$

 

    

$

 

Separation costs, includes net tax impacts

    

$

 

    

$

 

    

$

 

    

$

 

    

$

14

 

    

$

732

 

U.S. Tax Reform

    

$

 

    

$

 

    

$

 

    

$

 

    

$

3,891

 

    

$

(1,494

    

 

 

     

 

 

     

 

 

     

 

 

     

 

 

     

 

 

 

Adjusted net income attributable to Honeywell

    

$

3,960

 

    

$

4,441

 

    

$

4,814

 

    

$

5,120

 

    

$

5,517

 

    

$

6,031

 

    

 

 

     

 

 

     

 

 

     

 

 

     

 

 

     

 

 

 

Cash provided by operating activities

    

$

4,335

 

    

$

5,008

 

    

$

5,519

 

    

$

5,498

 

    

$

5,966

 

    

$

6,434

 

÷ Net income attributable to Honeywell

    

$

3,922

 

    

$

4,262

 

    

$

4,771

 

    

$

4,812

 

    

$

1,545

 

    

$

6,765

 

    

 

 

     

 

 

     

 

 

     

 

 

     

 

 

     

 

 

 

Operating cash flow conversion

    

 

111

    

 

119

    

 

116

    

 

114

    

 

386

    

 

95

    

 

 

     

 

 

     

 

 

     

 

 

     

 

 

     

 

 

 

Adjusted free cash flow

    

$

3,388

 

    

$

3,986

 

    

$

4,446

 

    

$

4,403

 

    

$

4,935

 

    

$

6,030

 

÷ Adjusted net income attributable to Honeywell

    

$

3,960

 

    

$

4,441

 

    

$

4,814

 

    

$

5,120

 

    

$

5,517

 

    

$

6,031

 

    

 

 

     

 

 

     

 

 

     

 

 

     

 

 

     

 

 

 

Adjusted free cash flow conversion %

    

 

86

    

 

90

    

 

92

    

 

86

    

 

89

    

 

100

    

 

 

     

 

 

     

 

 

     

 

 

     

 

 

     

 

 

 
                                           

 

(1)Reconciliation of Cash Provided by Operating Activities to Free Cash Flow

($B) 2003  2015  2016  2017 
Cash Provided by Operating Activities $2.2  $5.5  $5.5  $5.9 
Expenditures for Property, Plant and Equipment  (0.7)  (1.1)  (1.1)  (1.0)
Free Cash Flow $1.5  $4.4  $4.4  $4.9 

(2)Reconciliation of Net Income Attributable to Honeywell to Net Income Attributable to Honeywell Excluding Pension Mark-to-Market Expense, 4Q16 Debt Refinancing Expense, Separation Costs, and Impacts from tax legislation (“Tax Reform”)

($M) 2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017 
Net Income Attributable to Honeywell $2,926  $3,924  $4,239  $4,768  $4,809  $1,655 
Pension Mark-to-Market Expense, Net of Tax(1)  622   38   179   43   215   67 
Debt Refinancing Expense, Net of Tax(2)              93    
Impacts from Separation Costs, Net of Tax                 14 
Impacts from Tax Reform                 3,754 
Net Income Attributable to Honeywell, Excluding Pension Mark-to-Market Expense, 4Q16 Debt Refinancing Expense, Separation Costs and Impacts from Tax Reform $3,548  $3,962  $4,418  $4,811  $5,117  $5,490 
Net Income Attributable to 2016 Divestitures(3)                  (109)    
Net Income Attributable to Honeywell, Excluding Pension Mark-to-Market Expense, 4Q16 Debt Refinancing Expense, and 2016 Divestitures                 $5,008     

(1)Pension mark-to-market expense uses a blended tax rate of 35.0%, 25.5%, 28.1%, 36.1%, 21.3%, 23% and 23% for 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017.
(2)24%. Debt refinancing expense uses a tax rate of 26.5% for 2016.
(3)Net Income attributable to 2016 divestitures uses a blended tax rate of 33.9%.

We define free cash flow as cash provided by operating activities less cash expenditures for property, plant and equipment.

We believe that this metric is useful to investors and management as a measure of cash generated by business operations that will be used to repay scheduled debt maturities and can be used to invest in future growth through new business development activities or acquisitions, pay dividends, repurchase stock or repay debt obligations prior to their maturities. This metric can also be used to evaluate our ability to generate cash flow from business operations and the impact that this cash flow has on our liquidity.

(2) Reconciliation of EPS to Adjusted EPS

                             
     2015(1)     2016(2)     2017(3)     2018(4) 
                

Earnings per share of common stock - assuming dilution (EPS)

    

$

6.04

 

    

$

6.21

 

    

$

2.00

 

    

$

8.98

 

Pension Mark-to-Market Expense

    

 

0.06

 

    

 

0.28

 

    

 

0.09

 

    

 

0.04

 

Debt Refinancing Expense

    

 

 

    

 

0.12

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

Impacts from Separation Costs

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

0.02

 

    

 

0.97

 

Impacts from Tax Reform

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

5.04

 

    

 

(1.98

    

 

 

     

 

 

     

 

 

     

 

 

 

Adjusted earnings per share of common stock - assuming dilution

    

$

6.10

 

    

$

6.61

 

    

$

7.15

 

    

$

8.01

 

    

 

 

     

 

 

         

 

 

 

Less: EPS, attributable to spins(5)

            

 

0.19

 

    
            

 

 

     

Adjusted earnings per share of common stock - assuming dilution, excluding spin impact

            

$

6.96

 

    
            

 

 

     
                             

 

(3)(1)Reconciliation of EPS to EPS, Excluding Pension Mark-to-Market Expense, 4Q16 Debt Refinancing Expense, Separation Costs, and Impacts from Tax Reform

  2003(1)                     
EPS, Previously Reported $1.50                     
Effect of Pension Accounting Change  (0.11)                    
EPS $1.39                     
Pension Mark-to-Market Expense  0.12                     
EPS, Excluding Pension Mark-to-Market Expense $1.51                     
                         
  2012(2)  2013(3)  2014(4)  2015(5)  2016(6)  2017(7) 
EPS $3.69  $4.92  $5.33  $6.04  $6.20  $2.14 
Pension Mark-to-Market Expense  0.79   0.05   0.23   0.06   0.28   0.09 
Debt Refinancing Expense              0.12    
Impacts from Separation Costs                 0.02 
Impacts from Tax Reform                 4.86 
EPS, Excluding Pension Mark-to-Market Expense, Debt Refinancing Expense, Separation Costs and Impacts from Tax Reform $4.48  $4.97  $5.56  $6.10  $6.60  $7.11 
EPS, Attributable to 2016 Divestitures                  (0.14)    
EPS, Excluding Pension Mark-to-Market Expense, 4Q16 Debt Refinancing Expense, and 2016 Divestitures                 $6.46     
B-1

Appendix B

(1)Utilizes weighted average shares of 862.1 million. Pension mark-to-market expense uses a blended tax rate of 33.5%.
(2)Utilizes weighted average shares of 791.9 million. Pension mark-to-market expense uses a blended tax rate of 35.0%.
(3)Utilizes weighted average shares of 797.3 million. Pension mark-to-market expense uses a blended tax rate of 25.5%.
(4)Utilizes weighted average shares of 795.2 million. Pension mark-to-market expense uses a blended tax rate of 28.1%.
(5)Utilizes weighted average shares of 789.3 million. Pension mark-to-market expense uses a blended tax rate of 36.1%.

(2)(6)

Utilizes weighted average shares of 775.3 million. Pension mark-to-market expense uses a blended tax rate of 21.3%, debt
refinancing expense uses a tax rate of 26.5% and earnings attributable to 2016 divestitures uses a blended tax rate of 33.9%.

(3)(7)

Utilizes weighted average shares of 772.1 million. Pension mark-to-market expense uses a blended tax rate of 23%. Separation costs of $14 million including net tax impacts.

(4)

Utilizes weighted average shares of 753.0 million. Pension mark-to-market expense uses a blended tax rate of 24%. Separation costs of $732 million including net tax impacts.

(5)

Spin impact is calculated as the sum of Garrett after-tax spin segment profit in 4Q17 and Resideo after-tax spin segment profit in the months of November and December 2017, net of spin indemnification impacts assuming it was in place for both Garrett and Resideo in the period prior to the spins effective dates, using a tax rate of 17.2% and weighted average share count of 772 million.

 

(4)Reconciliation of Segment Profit to Operating Income

LOGO

|  Notice and Calculation of Segment Profit and Operating Income MarginsProxy Statement  |  2019

A-1



A-1  |

APPENDIX A:

RECONCILIATION OF NON-GAAP FINANCIAL MEASURES

 

($B) 2003 
Segment Profit $2.4 
Stock Compensation Expense(1)   
Repositioning and Other(2,3)  (0.2)
Pension Ongoing Income(2)  (0.1)
Pension Mark-to-Market Expense(2)  (0.2)
OPEB (Expense) Income(2)  (0.2)
Operating Income $1.7 
Segment Profit $2.4 
÷ Sales $22.1 
Segment Profit Margin %  10.6% 
Operating Income $1.7 
÷ Sales $22.1 
Operating Income Margin %  7.8% 

(3) Reconciliation of Segment Profit to Operating Income and Calculation of Segment Profit and Operating Income Margins

 

                      

($M)

    2016     2017     2018 
            

Segment Profit

    

$

7,186

 

    

$

7,690

 

    

$

8,190

 

Stock Compensation Expense(1)

    

 

(184

    

 

(176

    

 

(175

Repositioning, Other(2,3)

    

 

(674

    

 

(962

    

 

(1,100

Pension and other postretirement service costs(4)

    

 

(277

    

 

(249

    

 

(210

    

 

 

     

 

 

     

 

 

 

Operating Income

    

$

6,051

 

    

$

6,033

 

    

$

6,705

 

    

 

 

     

 

 

     

 

 

 

Segment Profit

    

$

7,186

 

    

$

7,690

 

    

$

8,190

 

÷ Sales

    

$

39,302

 

    

$

40,534

 

    

$

41,802

 

    

 

 

     

 

 

     

 

 

 

Segment Profit Margin %

    

 

18.3

    

 

19.0

    

 

19.6

    

 

 

     

 

 

     

 

 

 

Operating Income

    

$

6,051

 

    

$

6,303

 

    

$

6,705

 

÷ Sales

    

$

39,302

 

    

$

40,534

 

    

$

41,802

 

    

 

 

     

 

 

     

 

 

 

Operating Income Margin %

    

 

15.4

    

 

15.6

    

 

16.0

    

 

 

     

 

 

     

 

 

 
                      

(1)(1)Stock Compensation Expense

Amounts included in Segment Profit.

(2)Included in cost of products and services sold and selling, general and administrative expenses.

(2)(3)

Includes repositioning, asbestos, environmental expenses and equity income adjustment.

(5)(3)Reconciliation of Segment Profit to Operating Income and Calculation of Segment Profit and Operating Income Margins

($M) 2015  2016  2017 
Segment Profit $7,256  $7,186  $7,690 
Stock Compensation Expense(1)  (175)  (184)  (176)
Repositioning and Other(2,3)  (576)  (679)  (1,010)
Pension Ongoing Income(1)  430   601   713 
Pension Mark-to-Market Expense(1)  (67)  (273)  (87)
OPEB (Expense) Income(1)  (40)  32   21 
Operating Income $6,828  $6,683  $7,151 
Segment Profit $7,256  $7,186  $7,690 
÷ Sales $38,581  $39,302  $40,534 
Segment Profit Margin %  18.8%   18.3%   19.0% 
Operating Income $6,828  $6,683  $7,151 
÷ Sales $38,581  $39,302  $40,534 
Operating Income Margin %  17.7%   17.0%   17.6% 

(1)Included in cost of products and services sold and selling, general and administrative expenses.
(2)Includes repositioning, asbestos, environmental expenses and equity income adjustment.
(3)Included in cost of products and services sold, selling, general and administrative expenses, and other income/expense.

B-2(4)

Amounts included in cost of products and services sold and selling, general and administrative expenses (service costs).

Appendix BWe define segment profit as operating income, excluding stock compensation expense, pension and other postretirement service costs, and repositioning and other charges. We believe these measures are useful to investors and management in understanding our ongoing operations and in analysis of ongoing operating trends.

(4) Reconciliation of Organic Sales % Change

 

  
(6)Reconciliation of Effective Tax Rate to Effective Tax Rate Excluding Impacts from Tax Reform2018

Reported sales % change

 

        3

Less: Foreign Currency Translation

1

Less: Acquisitions, divestitures and other, net

(4

)% 

Organic Sales % Change

6

   2017
Effective Tax Rate  

We define organic sales percent change as the year-over-year change in reported sales relative to the comparable period, excluding the impact on sales from foreign currency translation, and acquisitions, net of divestitures. We believe this measure is useful to investors and management in understanding our ongoing operations and in analysis of ongoing operating trends.

(5) Reconciliation of Aerospace Organic Sales % Change

75.4%
Impacts from Tax Reform   (54.4%)
Effective Tax Rate Excluding Impacts from Tax Reform21.0%

  
(7)Reconciliation of 2018

Reported sales % change

        5

Less: Foreign Currency Translation

1

Less: Acquisitions, divestitures and other, net

(5

)% 

Organic Sales % Change

 

9

   2017
Reported sales % change  3%
Less: Foreign Currency Translation
Less: Acquisitions and Divestitures, Net(1%)
Organic Sales % Change4%

We define organic sales percent change as the year-over-year change in reported sales relative to the comparable period, excluding the impact on sales from foreign currency translation, and acquisitions, net of divestitures. We believe this measure is useful to investors and management in understanding our ongoing operations and in analysis of ongoing operating trends.

 

A-2

 
(8)

LOGO

Reconciliation of Cash Provided by Operating Activities to Free Cash Flow Excluding Divestitures

($M) 2016 
Cash Provided by Operating Activities $5,498 
Expenditures for Property, Plant and Equipment  (1,095)
Divestitures(1)  (112)
Free Cash Flow Excluding Divestitures $4,291 

 (1)

Impacts of 2016 HTSI divestiture

|  Notice and 2016 spin-off of the Resins & Chemicals business.Proxy Statement  |  2019

B-3



RECENT AWARDS

 

Corporate Reputation Awards

World’s Most Admired Companies

FORTUNEmagazine. 2006-2017

Fortune Magazine. 2006-2019

America’s Best Employers

Forbes. 2015

America’sTop 100 Most Reputable Companies

Forbes. 2014 Magazine. 2018

Most Honored Company

Institutional Investor. 2015-2018

Canada’s Best Employers

Forbes Magazine. 2018

Most Innovative In-House Legal Team

Financial Times. 2018

Innovation in Managing Complexity and Scale

Financial Times. 2018

Corporate Social Responsibility Program of the YearEthics

Stevie Awards. 2014, 2015

Happiest Companies in 2015

CareerBliss

Golden Peacock Award. 2018

Best for Vets

Military TimesTimes. 2017

Top Military Friendly Employer

G.I. Jobsmagazine. 2013-2017 Magazine. 2013-2018

Golden Peacock Award

Honeywell Hometown Solutions India Foundation 2017

2017 Best Corporations for Veterans Business Enterprises

National Veteran Owned Business AssociationAssociation. 2017

Among the Top Companies for Candor in Communications

Rittenhouse Rankings CEO Candor and Culture Survey.

2014-2016

President’s Award, Honeywell

National Association of Women Lawyers (NAWL). 2014

Leadership Awards

Best Chief Executive Officer, David CoteCEO, Darius Adamczyk

Institutional Investormagazine. 2013-2016

CEO of the Year, David Cote

Chief Executivemagazine. 2013

One of the World’s Best CEOs, David Cote

Barron’s. 2013-2016

Lifetime Achievement Award 2016, David Cote

American Chemical Society

CEO Coach of the Year 2016, David Cote

American Football Coaches Foundation

Deming Cup 2016, David Cote

Columbia University

Executive of the Year in Conglomerates, David Cote

Stevies American Award. 2015

Community Hope of NJ’s Hero Award 2015, David CoteInvestor. 2018

Corporate LeadershipSocial Responsibility Award, David CoteDarius Adamczyk

The TechAmerica Foundation. 2013Foreign Policy Association. 2018

Engineering Alumni Award, Darius Adamczyk

Best Shareholder Engagement, Jeffrey Neuman

Corporate SecretaryCorporate Governance Awards. 2017

Michigan State University. 2018

HR Executive of the Year, Mark R. James

Human Resource Executive magazine.Magazine. 2013

Diversity Awards

Top 50 Employers List

Most Influential BlackMinority Engineer Magazine. 2019

Corporate Visionary Award

Latino Corporate Directors Association. 2018

Savoy Magazine. Bradley Sheares and Robin WashingtonLeadership in the Promotion of Diversity

NJ LEEP. 2018

2020 Top 12 Employer

Women on Boards. 2015, 2016

National Society of Black Engineers

2016 Chairman’s Award

Engineer Magazine. 2018

Resnik Challenger Medal-Terri TaylorMedal

Society of Women EngineersEngineers. 2017

Women Worth Watching

Diversity JournalJournal. 2005, 2007, 2010-2017

2010-2018

Corporate Board Gender Diversity Award

Executive Women of New Jersey. 2014, 2015, 2017

Most Influential Black Corporate Directors, Robin L. Washington

Savoy Magazine. 2017

Technology Awards

2016 Top 100 Global Innovators

Clarivate AnalyticsAnalytics. 2018

Global Customer Value Leadership Award

Frost and Sullivan. 2019

National Medal of Technology and Innovation-Edith Flanigen

United States Government. 2014

Top 100 Global Innovators

Thomson Reuters. 2011-2014

Industry Leadership Award, Biofuels, Honeywell UOP

Platts Global Energy Awards. 2015

Most Innovative Tech Company of the Year

America Business Awards. 2015

Financial Management Awards

Best Chief Financial Officer, Tom SzlosekInvestor Relations Program

Institutional Investormagazine. 2015

Investor. 2012-2015, 2017-2018

Best Investor Relations Professional

Institutional Investormagazine. 2017

All American Executive Team-Investor Relations

Institutional Investormagazine.Investor. 2014, 2016, 2017

Best Investor Relations Program

Institutional Investormagazine. 2012-2015, 2017

2017-2018

Best Analyst DayDay/Investor Meetings

Institutional Investormagazine. 2016-2017

Investor. 2015-2018 / IR Magazine. 2018

Global Top 50 Gold

IRmagazine. Magazine. 2015, 2017

Best IR in Sector

Institutional Investor. 2014, 2017

Sustainability Awards

Best ESG/SRI Metrics

Institutional Investor. 2018

Top 2018 Corporate Social Responsibility Influence Leaders

Assent Compliance. 2018

Voluntary Protection Program

OSHA and Industrial Commission of Arizona. 2018

Best Safety Organization

Ministry of Labor Thailand. 2018

CSR China Education Award

Central Committee of the Communist Youth League of China. 2018

Invest in Education

Junior Achievement Romania. 2018

Hope Award

National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. 2018

Most Sustainable Corporate Headquarters

Corporate Responsibility (CR) Magazine.Magazine. 2017

2016 Vision for America Award

Keep America Beautiful

Beautiful. 2016

Campbell Safety Award-Honeywell Aerospace

National Safety Council. 2015

Thomas Keesee, Jr. Award for Environmental Sustainability

AudobonAudubon New York. 2015

 

Environmental Excellence Award, Mexico

Federal Attorney for Environmental Protection. 2015


 

The Connected Aircraft era is here. Honeywell can take you there.

LOGO

 

|  Notice and Proxy Statement  |  2019



LOGO

THE FUTURE IS WHAT WE MAKE IT. Tomorrow is completely determined by what we do today. We decide where to go; what well be. At Honeywell, weve been relentlessly innovating every day, for well over a century. Always pushing forward, day after day to make the future. Innovations like connecting aviation systems so ights takeoff on time and land safely. Creating new refrigerant technologies to cool buildings without warming the planet. Connecting data and devices to deliver better services and solutions. And inventing the technology and making the products to keep workers, who build the future, safe and out of harms way. Well continue to change the way the world works. Because what we do today means everything to tomorrow. For more information, please visit honeywell.com ©2019 Honeywell International. All rights reserved.


With thousands of products on aircraft around

LOGO

LOGO

VOTE BY INTERNET -www.proxyvote.com or scan the world, and more than 100 years of experience providing satellite communications, mechanics, engines, cockpit technology and more to the aerospace industry, we are now taking the aviation industry into a new era of connectivity.QR Barcode above

 
Our expertise

Use the Internet to transmit your voting instructions and for electronic delivery of information up until 11:59 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on April 28, 2019. If you participate in the Honeywell Sentience platform uniquely position us401(k) Plan or the Honeywell Puerto Rico Savings and Ownership Plan, you must vote these shares no later than 5:00 p.m. EDT on April 25, 2019. Have your proxy card in hand when you access the website and then follow the instructions to deliver Connected Aircraft solutionsobtain your records and to create an electronic voting instruction form.

ELECTRONIC DELIVERY OF FUTURE PROXY MATERIALS

If you would like to reduce the costs incurred by our company in mailing proxy materials, you can consent to receiving all future proxy statements, proxy cards and annual reports electronically via e-mail or the Internet. To sign up for electronic delivery, please follow the instructions above to vote using the Internet and, when prompted, indicate that enhanceyou agree to receive or access proxy materials electronically in future years.

VOTE BY PHONE -1-800-690-6903

Use any touch-tone telephone to transmit your voting instructions up until 11:59 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on April 28, 2019. If you participate in the passenger experience with high-speed Wi-Fi, ensure on-time performance with flight efficiency services, improve operations with predictive maintenance,Honeywell 401(k) Plan or the Honeywell Puerto Rico Savings and more.Ownership Plan, you must vote these shares no later than 5:00 p.m. EDT on April 25, 2019. Have your proxy card in hand when you call and then follow the instructions.

VOTE BY MAIL

Mark, sign and date your proxy card and return it in the postage-paid envelope we have provided or return it to Vote Processing, c/o Broadridge, 51 Mercedes Way, Edgewood, NY 11717.

 

For more information, please visit
www.honeywellconnectedaircraft.com
© 2018 Honeywell International. All rights reserved.

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.
115 TABOR ROAD
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950

SCAN TO

VIEW MATERIALS & VOTE

VOTE BY INTERNET -www.proxyvote.comor scan the QR Barcode above

Use the Internet to transmit your voting instructions and for electronic delivery of information up until 11:59 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on April 22, 2018. If you participate in the Honeywell Savings and Ownership Plan or the Honeywell Puerto Rico Savings and Ownership Plan, you must vote these shares no later than 5:00 p.m. EDT on April 19, 2018. Have your proxy card in hand when you access the website and then follow the instructions to obtain your records and to create an electronic voting instruction form.

ELECTRONIC DELIVERY OF FUTURE PROXY MATERIALS

If you would like to reduce the costs incurred by our company in mailing proxy materials, you can consent to receiving all future proxy statements, proxy cards and annual reports electronically via e-mail or the Internet. To sign up for electronic delivery, please follow the instructions above to vote using the Internet and, when prompted, indicate that you agree to receive or access proxy materials electronically in future years.

VOTE BY PHONE - 1-800-690-6903

Use any touch-tone telephone to transmit your voting instructions up until 11:59 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on April 22, 2018. If you participate in the Honeywell Savings and Ownership Plan or the Honeywell Puerto Rico Savings and Ownership Plan, you must vote these shares no later than 5:00 p.m. EDT on April 19, 2018. Have your proxy card in hand when you call and then follow the instructions.

VOTE BY MAIL

Mark, sign and date your proxy card and return it in the postage-paid envelope we have provided or return it to Vote Processing, c/o Broadridge, 51 Mercedes Way, Edgewood, NY 11717.


TO VOTE, MARK BLOCKS BELOW IN BLUE OR BLACK INK AS FOLLOWS:

  
 E35544-P99777-Z71478E53852-P15959KEEP THIS PORTION FOR YOUR RECORDS

— — — — — — — — — — — — — —  — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —  — — — — — — — — — — — —

DETACH AND RETURN THIS PORTION ONLY
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.

THIS PROXY CARD IS VALID ONLY WHEN SIGNED AND DATED.

DETACH AND RETURN THIS PORTION ONLY

 

1.  Election of Directors:
The Board of Directors recommends a vote“FOR”
Nominees (A) through (L).
ForAgainst
        
A.Darius Adamczyk££
    
B.Duncan B. Angove££
C.William S. Ayer££
D.Kevin Burke££
E.Jaime Chico Pardo££
F.D. Scott Davis££
G.Linnet F. Deily££
H.Judd Gregg££
I.Clive Hollick££
J.Grace D. Lieblein££
K.George Paz££
L.Robin L. Washington££

              

1.

 Election of Directors:

     
  The Board of Directors recommends a vote“FOR” Nominees (A) through (L).

   
   

LOGO

For

Against

A.

Darius Adamczyk

B.

Duncan B. Angove

C.

William S. Ayer

The Board of Directors recommends a vote“FOR”Proposals (2) and (3).
D.

Kevin Burke

LOGO

For

Against      Abstain      
E.

Jaime Chico Pardo

2.

Advisory Vote to Approve Executive Compensation.
F.

D. Scott Davis

3.

Approval of Independent Accountants.
G.

Linnet F. Deily

The Board of Directors recommends a vote“AGAINST”Proposals (4) and (5).
H.

Judd Gregg

For

LOGO

Against

Abstain
I.

Clive Hollick

4.

Right To Act By Written Consent.
J.

Grace D. Lieblein

5.

Report on Lobbying Payments and Policy.
K.

George Paz

L.

Robin L. Washington

For address changes and/or comments, please check this box and write them on the back where indicated.

Please indicate if you plan to attend this meeting.

YesNo

Signature [PLEASE SIGN WITHIN BOX]DateSignature (Joint Owners)Date
 
           
            
 
The Board of Directors recommends a vote“FOR”
Proposals (2), (3) and (4).
ForAgainstAbstain
2.Advisory Vote to Approve Executive Compensation.£££
3.Approval of Independent Accountants.£££
4.Reduce Ownership Threshold Required to Call a Special Meeting of Shareowners.£££
The Board of Directors recommends a vote“AGAINST”
Proposals (5) and (6).
ForAgainstAbstain
5.Independent Board Chairman.£££
6.Report on Lobbying Payments and Policy.£££
For address changes and/or comments, please check this box and write them on the back where indicated.£
Please indicate if you plan to attend this meeting.££
YesNo


Signature [PLEASE SIGN WITHIN BOX]DateSignature (Joint Owners)Date

 

Important Notice Regarding Availability of Proxy Materials:The 20182019 Notice and Proxy Statement and 20172018 Annual Report are available at www.proxyvote.com.

E35545-P99777-Z71478   

PROXY

HONEYWELL

www.proxyvote.comThis Proxy is Solicited on Behalf of the Board of Directors of Honeywell International Inc.
Annual Meeting of Shareowners - April 23, 2018.

 

The undersigned hereby appoints Darius Adamczyk, David M. Cote, and Anne T. Madden as proxies (each with the power to act alone and with full power of substitution) to vote, as designated herein, all shares the undersigned is entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting of Shareowners of Honeywell International Inc. to be held on April 23, 2018, and at any and all adjournments thereof. The proxies are authorized to vote in their discretion upon such other business as may properly come before the Meeting and any and all adjournments thereof.— — — — — — — — — — — — —  — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —  — — — — — — — — — —

E53853-P15959        

 

Your vote on the election of Directors and the other proposals described in the accompanying Proxy Statement may be specified on the reverse side. The nominees for Director are: Darius Adamczyk, Duncan B. Angove, William S. Ayer, Kevin Burke, Jaime Chico Pardo, D. Scott Davis, Linnet F. Deily, Judd Gregg, Clive Hollick, Grace D. Lieblein, George Paz, and Robin L. Washington.

IF PROPERLY SIGNED, DATED AND RETURNED, THIS PROXY WILL BE VOTED AS SPECIFIED ON THE REVERSE SIDE OR, IF NO CHOICE IS SPECIFIED, THIS PROXY WILL BE VOTED FOR THE ELECTION OF ALL NOMINEES FOR DIRECTOR, “FOR” PROPOSALS 2, 3 AND 4 AND “AGAINST” PROPOSALS 5 AND 6. PLEASE NOTE: PHONE AND INTERNET VOTING CUTOFF IS 11:59 PM EDT ON APRIL 22, 2018.

This instruction and proxy card is also solicited by the Board of Directors of Honeywell International Inc. (the “Company”) for use at the Annual Meeting of Shareowners on April 23, 2018 by persons who participate in the Honeywell Savings and Ownership Plan or the Honeywell Puerto Rico Savings and Ownership Plan.PHONE AND INTERNET VOTING CUTOFF FOR SAVINGS PLAN PARTICIPANTS IS 5:00 PM EDT ON APRIL 19, 2018.

By signing this instruction and proxy card, or by voting by phone or Internet, the undersigned hereby directs The Northern Trust Company, as Trustee for the Honeywell Savings and Ownership Plan, and Banco Popular, as Trustee for the Honeywell Puerto Rico Savings and Ownership Plan, to vote, as designated herein, all shares of common stock with respect to which the undersigned is entitled to direct the Trustee as to voting under the plan at the Annual Meeting of Shareowners of Honeywell International Inc. to be held on April 23, 2018, and at any and all adjournments thereof. The Trustee is also authorized to vote such shares in connection with the transaction of such other business as may properly come before the Meeting and any and all adjournments thereof.

Your vote on the election of Directors and the other proposals described in the accompanying Proxy Statement may be specified on the reverse side. The nominees for Director are: Darius Adamczyk, Duncan B. Angove, William S. Ayer, Kevin Burke, Jaime Chico Pardo, D. Scott Davis, Linnet F. Deily, Judd Gregg, Clive Hollick, Grace D. Lieblein, George Paz, and Robin L. Washington.

IF PROPERLY SIGNED, DATED AND RETURNED, THE SHARES ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ACCOUNT WILL BE VOTED BY THE TRUSTEE AS SPECIFIED ON THE REVERSE SIDE OR, IF NO CHOICE IS SPECIFIED, SUCH SHARES WILL BE VOTED FOR THE ELECTION OF ALL NOMINEES FOR DIRECTOR, “FOR” PROPOSALS 2, 3 AND 4 AND “AGAINST” PROPOSALS 5 AND 6. THE TRUSTEE WILL VOTE SHARES AS TO WHICH NO DIRECTIONS ARE RECEIVED IN THE SAME RATIO AS SHARES WITH RESPECT TO WHICH DIRECTIONS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM OTHER PARTICIPANTS IN THE PLAN, UNLESS CONTRARY TO ERISA.

Note: Please sign exactly as your name or names appear(s) on this Proxy. When shares are held jointly, each holder should sign. When signing as executor, administrator, attorney, trustee or guardian, please give full title as such. If the signer is a corporation, please sign full corporate name by duly authorized officer, giving full title as such. If signer is a partnership, please sign in partnership name by authorized person.

Please date and sign your Proxy on the reverse side and return it promptly.

  
Address Changes/Comments: 

PROXY

HONEYWELL

This Proxy is Solicited on Behalf of the Board of Directors of Honeywell International Inc.

Annual Meeting of Shareowners - April 29, 2019

The undersigned hereby appoints Darius Adamczyk and Anne T. Madden as proxies (each with the power to act alone and with full power of substitution) to vote, as designated herein, all shares the undersigned is entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting of Shareowners of Honeywell International Inc. to be held on April 29, 2019, and at any and all adjournments thereof. The proxies are authorized to vote in their discretion upon such other business as may properly come before the Meeting and any and all adjournments thereof.

Your vote on the election of Directors and the other proposals described in the accompanying Proxy Statement may be specified on the reverse side. The nominees for Director are: Darius Adamczyk, Duncan B. Angove, William S. Ayer, Kevin Burke, Jaime Chico Pardo, D. Scott Davis, Linnet F. Deily, Judd Gregg, Clive Hollick, Grace D. Lieblein, George Paz, and Robin L. Washington.

IF PROPERLY SIGNED, DATED AND RETURNED, THIS PROXY WILL BE VOTED AS SPECIFIED ON THE REVERSE SIDE OR, IF NO CHOICE IS SPECIFIED, THIS PROXY WILL BE VOTED FOR THE ELECTION OF ALL NOMINEES FOR DIRECTOR, “FOR” PROPOSALS 2 AND 3 AND “AGAINST” PROPOSALS 4 AND 5. PLEASE NOTE: PHONE AND INTERNET VOTING CUTOFF IS 11:59 PM EDT ON APRIL 28, 2019.

This instruction and proxy card is also solicited by the Board of Directors of Honeywell International Inc. (the “Company”) for use at the Annual Meeting of Shareowners on April 29, 2019 by persons who participate in the Honeywell 401(k) Plan or the Honeywell Puerto Rico Savings and Ownership Plan.PHONE AND INTERNET VOTING CUTOFF FOR SAVINGS PLAN PARTICIPANTS IS 5:00 PM EDT ON APRIL 25, 2019.

By signing this instruction and proxy card, or by voting by phone or Internet, the undersigned hereby directs The Northern Trust Company, as Trustee for the Honeywell 401(k) Plan, and Banco Popular, as Trustee for the Honeywell Puerto Rico Savings and Ownership Plan, to vote, as designated herein, all shares of common stock with respect to which the undersigned is entitled to direct the Trustee as to voting under the plan at the Annual Meeting of Shareowners of Honeywell International Inc. to be held on April 29, 2019, and at any and all adjournments thereof. The Trustee is also authorized to vote such shares in connection with the transaction of such other business as may properly come before the Meeting and any and all adjournments thereof.

Your vote on the election of Directors and the other proposals described in the accompanying Proxy Statement may be specified on the reverse side. The nominees for Director are: Darius Adamczyk, Duncan B. Angove, William S. Ayer, Kevin Burke, Jaime Chico Pardo, D. Scott Davis, Linnet F. Deily, Judd Gregg, Clive Hollick, Grace D. Lieblein, George Paz, and Robin L. Washington.

IF PROPERLY SIGNED, DATED AND RETURNED, THE SHARES ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ACCOUNT WILL BE VOTED BY THE TRUSTEE AS SPECIFIED ON THE REVERSE SIDE OR, IF NO CHOICE IS SPECIFIED, SUCH SHARES WILL BE VOTED FOR THE ELECTION OF ALL NOMINEES FOR DIRECTOR, “FOR” PROPOSALS 2 AND 3 AND “AGAINST” PROPOSALS 4 AND 5. THE TRUSTEE WILL VOTE SHARES AS TO WHICH NO DIRECTIONS ARE RECEIVED IN THE SAME RATIO AS SHARES WITH RESPECT TO WHICH DIRECTIONS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM OTHER PARTICIPANTS IN THE PLAN, UNLESS CONTRARY TO ERISA.

Note: Please sign exactly as your name or names appear(s) on this Proxy. When shares are held jointly, each holder should sign. When signing as executor, administrator, attorney, trustee or guardian, please give full title as such. If the signer is a corporation, please sign full corporate name by duly authorized officer, giving full title as such. If signer is a partnership, please sign in partnership name by authorized person.

Please date and sign your Proxy on the reverse side and return it promptly.

  
   

(If you noted any Address Changes/Comments above, please mark corresponding box on the reverse side.)

FORM OF EMAIL MESSAGE REGARDING PROXY MATERIALS AND VOTING

Subject: Vote now! HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. Annual Meeting

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.
 

2018 Annual Meeting

April 23, 2018

Important proxy voting material is ready for your action.
This email represents the following share(s):
HONEYWELL INTL - COMMON123,456,789,012.00000
HONEYWELL SAVINGS & OWNERSHIP PLAN123,456,789,012.00000
HONEYWELL PR SAVINGS & OWNERSHIP PLAN123,456,789,012.00000
HONEYWELL INTL - BENDIX123,456,789,012.00000
HONEYWELL INTL - SHAREBUILDER123,456,789,012.00000
  

Three Ways to Vote

Now via ProxyVoteVote By
April 22, 2018 11:59 P.M. ET


At the Meeting


By Phone 1.800.690.6903

For shares held in a Plan, vote by
April 19, 2018 5:00 P.M. ET

Control Number:  0123456789012345

Important

Materials  Address Changes/Comments:

 

  
   Proxy Statement
   Annual Report

(If you noted any Address Changes/Comments above, please mark corresponding box on the reverse side.)

  


FORM OF EMAIL MESSAGE REGARDING PROXY MATERIALS AND VOTING

Subject : Vote Your Shares Now: HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. Annual Meeting.

 

LOGO

 

For holders as of February 23, 2018
LOGO

2019 Annual Meeting

April 29, 2019

Important proxy voting material is ready for your action.

This email represents the following share(s):

HONEYWELL INTL - COMMON

123,456,789,012.00000 

HONEYWELL 401(K) PLAN

123,456,789,012.00000 

HONEYWELL 401(K) PLAN (KC - UNION)

123,456,789,012.00000 

HONEYWELL PUERTO RICO SAVINGS PLAN

123,456,789,012.00000 
(c)1997 - 2018 Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc.
ProxyVote and Broadridge are trademarks of Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc.
CUSIP is a registered trademark of the American Bankers Association.
All other registered marks belong to their respective owners.
Email Settings |Terms and Conditions |Privacy Statement

HONEYWELL INTL – SHAREBUILDER

123,456,789,012.00000 

ThreeWays to Vote
LOGONow via ProxyVoteLOGO

Vote By

April 28, 2019 11:59 P.M. ET

LOGOAt the MeetingLOGO

For shares held in a Plan, vote by

April 25, 2019 5:00 P.M. ET

LOGOBy Phone 1.800.690.6903Control Number: 0123456789012345


FORM OF EMAIL MESSAGE REGARDING PROXY MATERIALS AND VOTING

Subject : Vote Your Shares Now: HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. Annual Meeting.

Important

   Materials

LOGOProxy Statement
LOGOAnnual Report

For holders as of March 1, 2019

LOGO